In the case of succession after the closing of argument;

The final and conclusive judgment on invalidity of the cause of the transfer of ownership shall be effective on a person who has received the transfer of ownership after the closing of argument in the case, so a person who has received the registration of transfer of ownership shall be deemed to be a successor after the closing of argument

Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Notice 63Ma14 delivered on September 27, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 7979 delivered on July 13, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 12Da169 delivered on September 13, 197; Decision 78Da2290 delivered on February 13, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 79Da1702 delivered on May 13, 1980

Class I of plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (78 Gohap318)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On October 7, 1970, the defendant implemented the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as stipulated in No. 28596, which was the receipt of the registration of the Jeonju District Court No. 28596, Oct. 7, 197 with respect to the registration of the transfer of ownership against the plaintiff 41 1-3 3 41-

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In light of the facts that the registration of transfer of ownership was made on October 17, 1977 with respect to real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as "forest of this case") under the name of the non-party on May 16, 1971 as the non-party on the ground of the decision of permission of auction on October 29, 1971 and that the registration of transfer of ownership was made on October 30, 197 under the name of the previous Jeju District Court No. 28596, and that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership was made on the ground of trust act of October 30, 1975, Gap evidence No. 1-2 (decision), Gap evidence No. 2 through 7 (Dismissal), Eul evidence No. 97, and Eul evidence No. 97, and the judgment of the court below against the non-party on July 197, 197 which ruled that the plaintiff's final appeal of this case was rejected.

However, the plaintiff's registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void because it conflicts with the above final judgment, and the judgment of the first instance also acknowledges the above facts and accepts the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that res judicata effect of the above final judgment extends to the defendant who is a successor after the closing of argument. However, according to the above facts acknowledged, the above final judgment against the non-party shall be deemed effective as against the defendant who has received the registration of transfer of ownership in the forest of this case from the above non-party after the closing of argument in the case (see Supreme Court Order 63Ma14, Sept. 27, 1963). Accordingly, the plaintiff should have dismissed the lawsuit in this case by being illegal litigation that does not meet the requirements for protection of rights by the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da2290, Feb. 13, 1979). Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court should be revoked, and the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed by the cancellation of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the first instance court.

Judges Yoon Il-young (Presiding Judge)