This case is in conflict with res judicata

In the event that a provisional registration of ownership transfer has been made with respect to the real estate owned by the defendant as a security for the obligation, and if the obligation cannot be repaid by the due date, the principal registration procedure for the above real estate was agreed to implement to the plaintiff with respect to the above real estate, and the execution of the principal registration procedure for the above real estate was demanded against the defendant on the ground that the loan is not repaid until the due date expires, but the judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff became final and conclusive. In other words, the plaintiff as the principal suit provides the defendant with the balance obtained by deducting the principal and interest borrowed from the market price of the above real estate at the time of borrowing the principal and interest at the time of borrowing the principal suit and sought ownership transfer registration, etc. In this regard, although there is a little difference between the principal suit and the principal suit in this point, the plaintiff's intent to liquidate the monetary lending relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant by such a way, and as such, the lawsuit in this case

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2497 delivered on June 25, 1968

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court (66Ga2675, 402) of the first instance trial

The part concerning principal lawsuit in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal on the counterclaim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit incurred in relation to the principal lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant), and the costs of appeal incurred in relation to the counterclaim shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) sought the cancellation of the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment against the plaintiff, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff plaintiff plaintiff hereinafter "the plaintiff plaintiff "), as the main lawsuit, receives gold 213,00 won from the plaintiff. At the same time, he receives 213,00 won from the plaintiff, and at the same time he receives from the plaintiff about the plaintiff 23 site 64 square meters and above sapapap 1, 43 square meters and 43 square meters and 5 square meters and sapap 1,5 square meters and 15 square meters in 1,27, 1965 in 1, 195 in 1, 27, 1965. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and the defendant sought the cancellation of the provisional execution of the part against the defendant's property name among the original judgment, and the plaintiff is a counterclaim for the cancellation of the part against the defendant's execution of the ownership transfer registration due to the sale and purchase registration by the Gwangju District Court No. 3639,27, March 27, 1, 1963.

The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

First of all, we will examine the plaintiff's claims on the merits ex officio.

In this case, on February 27, 1965, the purport of the plaintiff's claim is determined and lent as 550,000 won to the defendant on March 30 of the same year on the date of maturity of five percent per annum, the plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the real estate in the attached list owned by the defendant as a security, and if the above loan is not repaid at the maturity date, the plaintiff agreed to register the transfer of ownership based on the above provisional registration (in this case, it is difficult to conclude the transfer of ownership as a security because there is no transfer of ownership in a significant sense, it is difficult to conclude the transfer of ownership), notwithstanding the agreement that the defendant will register the transfer of ownership based on the above provisional registration (in this case, it is invalid that the part exceeding the principal of the claim to be collected by the plaintiff is invalid, and the above debt is not repaid. Thus, the plaintiff shall return the principal of the loan to the defendant after deducting 550,000 won and the remaining amount of 31,501,5000 won from the market price of the above real estate.2

However, if the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (judgment) without dispute over its establishment show the purport of the parties' pleadings, the plaintiff takes the form of non-party Nos. 1 and 2, whose wife is the debtor on February 27, 1965 and takes the maturity of 550,000 won from the plaintiff on March 30 of the same year, and interest shall be fixed and borrowed at March 10 of the same year, the defendant and the non-party No. 1 shall be the joint guarantor, and the defendant shall make a provisional registration of transfer of ownership as to the real estate in the attached list of co-owners, and the defendant shall return the ownership (provisional registration) of the above real estate to the defendant at the time when the debtor et al. repays the above debts until the maturity of the principal registration procedure to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff Nos. 1 and the decision against the plaintiff No. 96 of the first instance judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that the above debts are not repaid until the expiration of the maturity.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is filed again between the same parties with regard to the matters for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, and since the legal effect of this case is granted to the matters for which judgment has already become final and conclusive by res judicata of the judgment, the claim of this case shall no longer be raised against it, and it shall be deemed unfair without any further review.

However, as mentioned above, the plaintiff provided the defendant with the balance after deducting the sum of the principal and interest borrowed at the market price of the real estate listed in the attached list at the time when the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff at the time of borrowing money, and sought ownership transfer registration and housing name. Therefore, although the purport of the claim is somewhat different from the previous claim already finalized, it is nothing more than the desire of the plaintiff to liquidate the monetary lending and borrowing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in such a way, but it does not affect the principle that the lawsuit of this case conflicts with the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit, as long as there is no assertion that the plaintiff would be seeking to liquidate the monetary lending and borrowing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in such a way.

Next, the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim is that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the defendant and the plaintiff, non-party 1, and 3 conspired with the plaintiff, non-party 1, and the defendant registered transfer of ownership, such as the purport of the counterclaim claim in the future of the plaintiff, and this is a registration of invalidity of cause. The above defendant's assertion is without merit, since the real estate is owned by the defendant, and there is no theory between the parties that the provisional registration of transfer of ownership was made in the name of the plaintiff, such as that of the defendant, but it is consistent with the argument that the above provisional registration was made in collusion with the plaintiff, non-party 1, and 3 as alleged in the above defendant, although there is no theory between the parties that the provisional registration was made in the name of the plaintiff, non-party 1, and the above provisional registration was made in the manner of mind

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for counterclaim shall be dismissed, and the defendant's claim for counterclaim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of a different court which has different conclusions with respect to the part of the plaintiff's claim for counterclaim shall be revoked in an improper manner, and the defendant's appeal concerning the counterclaim shall be dismissed, and all the costs of appeal arising in relation to the counterclaim shall be borne by the plaintiff and the costs of appeal arising in relation to

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)