[1] Where the subject matter of a lawsuit is not identical, if the subject matter of a lawsuit in the subsequent lawsuit is inconsistent with the legal relations established in the previous lawsuit, whether the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit affects the subsequent lawsuit (affirmative)

[2] Whether a claim for the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation is in conflict with the res judicata effect (affirmative)

[3] Whether the right to claim the cancellation registration of invalidation and the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership based on the restoration of real name permissible in lieu of the right to claim the same subject matter of lawsuit (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that a claim for ownership transfer registration based on a title restoration in lieu of a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made by reconciliation prior to the filing of a lawsuit is not allowed because it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the reconciliation prior to the filing of a lawsuit on the grounds that the subject matter of lawsuit is identical substantially

[5] The validity of a protocol of conciliation contrary to the mandatory law

[1] Even if the subject matter of a lawsuit in the previous and subsequent suit is not the same, if the subject matter of a lawsuit in the subsequent suit is the subject matter of a lawsuit inconsistent with the established legal relations in the previous suit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit extends to the subsequent suit.

[2] Since the protocol of protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment and res judicata takes effect between the parties, insofar as a compromise prior to the filing of a lawsuit, which the plaintiff implemented the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the land that was caused by the termination of a trust, is not revoked by a quasi-adjudication, claiming that the registration of ownership transfer based on the compromise prior to the filing of the lawsuit is null and void, and claiming the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration is contrary to the res judicata effect.

[3] A claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration is allowed in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current title holder in a way that the ownership was already registered in his/her future, or that the person who acquired ownership pursuant to the law seeks the cancellation of the registration in order to restore the true title of registration. The claim for the registration of ownership transfer and the claim for the cancellation of the registration of invalidation based on the restoration of the true title allowed in lieu of the registration of cancellation are either to restore the name of the true owner, and its purpose is substantially identical, and both claims are identical in its legal basis and nature as the claim for the exclusion of interference based on the ownership. Thus, although the former takes the form of the registration of ownership transfer and the latter

[4] The case holding that a claim for ownership transfer registration based on a title restoration in lieu of a claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made by compromise prior to the filing of a lawsuit is not allowed because it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the reconciliation prior to the filing of a lawsuit on the grounds that the subject matter of lawsuit is identical substantially

[5] Since the protocol of protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit has the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment and the res judicata between the parties takes effect, it is a separate issue that the content of protocol of protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit is merely a defect in the settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit, unless there exist grounds such as the grounds for invalidation of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the protocol of protocol is null and void

[1] Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 216 and 385 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 216 and 385 of the Civil Procedure Act / [5] Articles 216, 220, and 385 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da52488 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1712) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Da37894 delivered on September 20, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2251) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 74Da634 delivered on November 11, 1975 (Gong1976, 8763), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu275 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1700), Supreme Court Decision 9Da6703 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong200Sang, 951)

[Judgment of the court below] The Head of Silsan-gu Office of First Instance (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chang-gu Chang-gu Mack-si

Changwon District Court Decision 2000Na47771 delivered on June 27, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and second points

Even if the subject matter of both the previous and subsequent litigations are not identical, if the subject matter of both the previous and subsequent litigations were to be the subject matter of a lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit extends to the subsequent suit (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da52488, Mar. 24, 1995). Since the protocol of protocol prior to the lawsuit has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment and res judicata effect between the parties, the protocol of protocol prior to the lawsuit has res judicata effect between the parties. Thus, insofar as the compromise prior to the lawsuit was not cancelled by a quasi-adjudication that the plaintiff agreed to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the grounds of termination of the trust on each of the land of this case, claiming that the ownership transfer registration on the basis of the compromise prior to the lawsuit becomes null and void, and claiming the implementation of the procedure for registration prior to the lawsuit is contrary to res judicata effect.

In addition, a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real name is allowed in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current registered titleholder in a way that the former has already been registered to indicate ownership in his/her future, or that the person who has acquired ownership pursuant to the Act claims the cancellation of the registration. The claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real name and the claim for the cancellation of the registration of invalidation, which is allowed in lieu of the registration of cancellation, are to restore the name of the true owner, and its purpose is substantially identical, and all of the two claims are the claim for the removal of interference based on ownership and are in the same nature as the legal basis. Thus, even if the former takes the form of the registration of transfer registration and the latter takes the form of the registration of cancellation, the subject matter of the lawsuit shall be deemed to be the same (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da37894 delivered on September 20, 201). In this case, since the plaintiff claims for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real name in this case, the subject matter of res judicata shall also be deemed to be identical.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's selective claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the recovery of real name or the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the protocol of compromise in this case is not revoked by quasi-adjudications, and that the plaintiff's selective claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the restoration of real name or the cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of the protocol of compromise in this case is not allowed to dispute the validity of ownership transfer registration on the ground of the res judicata

2. On the third ground for appeal

Since the protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, res judicata takes effect between the parties, and even if its content is in violation of the compulsory provisions, it is merely a defect in the settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the protocol becomes null and void (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2275, Oct. 13, 1987; 9Da67703, Mar. 10, 200, etc.). Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the conciliation prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case is null and void as it is an anti-social order in which Nonparty 2, who was the representative of the defendant clan, actively participated in the act of breach of trust of the non-party 1, who was the representative of the plaintiff clan, and thus, is not acceptable.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as lack of reason or omission of judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)