Whether a claim for cancellation of provisional registration and principal registration is in conflict with res judicata effect in cases where the principal registration based on provisional registration based on provisional registration for security was made pursuant to a lawsuit telephone protocol at the time of enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act, etc., on the ground that the principal and interest

In a case where the principal registration based on the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration for the security of claims at the time of enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act was made based on the lawsuit telephone protocol, the debtor's filing of a claim for provisional registration and cancellation of the principal registration based on the reason that all creditors have paid the principal and interest of the secured debt after the preparation of the lawsuit telephone protocol cannot be deemed to conflict with res judicata effect of the

Article 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Act, Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Gwangju District Court Decision 92Na1823 delivered on September 29, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos.1 and 2

In a case where the principal registration based on the provisional registration based on the right to claim ownership transfer registration for security at the time of the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Registration Security Act") was made based on the complaint and telephone protocol, the debtor's claim for provisional registration and cancellation of the principal registration based on the reason that all of the principal and interest of the secured debt have been repaid to the creditor after the preparation of the complaint and telephone protocol is not in conflict with res judicata effect of the complaint

From this point of view, on January 28, 1986, at the time of the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act, Defendant 1 lent the borrowed money to the Plaintiff on January 28, 1986, which was the time when the provisional registration was made in the form of a promise to sell and purchase the real estate of this case owned by the Plaintiff, but did not receive the above borrowed money from the Plaintiff, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the provisional registration under the name of Defendant 1 and the registration of transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration and the registration of transfer of ownership based on the above provisional registration by using the delegation letter of delegation of the lawsuit for filing a claim against the Plaintiff, which was received in advance from the Plaintiff, and in accordance with the protocol of settlement, Defendant 2 did not follow the liquidation procedure prescribed in the Provisional Registration Security Act until he purchased the real estate of this case and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the above provisional registration. After recognizing that the Plaintiff deposited the entire borrowed money principal and interest with the Plaintiff. Defendant 2 did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the provisional registration.

In addition, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the registration of transfer by Defendant 1 based on the protocol of conciliation cannot be null and void, unless the instant protocol of conciliation is revoked by quasi-adjudications. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of Defendant 1 was neglected, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss all.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)