The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff is in conflict with the so-called "Prohibition of Overlapping Lawsuits" under the Civil Procedure Act.

Before the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, if the plaintiff's creditor has already filed a lawsuit against the same defendants by subrogation of the plaintiff by the creditor's subrogation right, and the lawsuit is in progress, and even if there are different parties, it is the same lawsuit, and it is against the prohibition of double lawsuit.

Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act

2011 Gohap 134037 Registration for cancellation of ownership

AAAAC Co., Ltd.

ParkBB and 25 others

May 29, 2013

June 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against each of the defendants other than defendantCC Construction Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed.

2. DefendantCC Construction Co., Ltd.: 1/12 in each of the registrations of initial ownership completed by the Seoul Central District Court No. 79305 on August 30, 2005 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, the Defendant O, GaO, HaO, HaO, HaO, HaO, HaO, and MaO.

For the registration of cancellation of shares, the declaration of acceptance is made.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and DefendantCC Construction Co., Ltd., and the part arising between the Plaintiff and DefendantCC Construction Co., Ltd, shall be borne by DefendantCC Construction Co., Ltd.

"each real estate in this case" is registered under Paragraph 2 of this case and the plaintiff, and attached list (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case"), each of the registration of initial use made under the Seoul Central District Court No. 79305 on August 30, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above cases") with respect to the real estate in this case, the family registration of initial use in this case, the family registration of initial use in 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim for consent declaration against each Defendants other than Defendant ParkB, MagO, and CC Construction Co., Ltd. and Defendant KimO

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Before the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation, if the plaintiff's creditor has already filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the same defendant by subrogation of the plaintiff, and the lawsuit is in progress, and even if the parties differ, the lawsuit is in substance the same lawsuit, and the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff is in conflict with the prohibition of so-called overlapping lawsuit under Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 259 of the current Civil Procedure Act) (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da29256, Apr. 14, 1995).

The fact that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership preservation registration, the declaration of consent thereto, and the cancellation of registration of the establishment of a mortgage on December 19, 201 against the said Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff had acquired each of the instant real estate at the original time is apparent in the record. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s creditor, on November 16, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff was subrogated to the Plaintiff by subrogation of the Plaintiff as the court 201Gahap120533, and the Plaintiff had filed a lawsuit identical to the claim against the said Defendants on November 16, 2011, and that the duplicate of the complaint was served to the said Defendants prior to the duplicate of the complaint in this case. In full view of the above facts of recognition, this part of the lawsuit against the said Defendants by the said Defendants is unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the subsequent suit substantially identical with the instant case.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation among the lawsuits against Defendant ParkB and Defendant KimOO

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties to the lawsuit has res judicata effect, and the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1275, Sept. 11, 1979). Where a creditor files a lawsuit against a third-party debtor by exercising a creditor's subrogation right and obtains a judgment, at least the debtor has filed a lawsuit by subrogation of the creditor, the effect of the judgment extends to the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 74Da164, May 13, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 93Da4519, Apr. 27, 1993). The plaintiff's above judgment in favor of the two parties to the lawsuit on the plaintiff's lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff's aforementioned judgment in favor of the two parties to the lawsuit had been affirmed on the ground that the plaintiff's above judgment had no effect on the plaintiff's independent acquisition of the above real estate, and that the plaintiff's aforementioned judgment in favor of the two parties to the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's allegation 200.

3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against DefendantCC Construction Company

"The plaintiff and the original acquisitor of each of the real estate in this case are themselves, and thus, they are liable to express their consent to the registration procedure for cancellation of the above ownership preservation, and the defendantCC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC Construction"), which is the provisional disposition owner against these, are under the obligation to pay the above 20. The decision whether the third party is formally recognized by the registry that there is concern over causing damage by registering cancellation of the third party's column under Article 171, and whether the third party is under the obligation to give consent is under the substantive law in relation to the owner of the registration for cancellation (the Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da43753 Decided April 27, 2007, 208, 2008; 200OO's New O Construction, 2500, 20000, and 200O's New O Construction, and 20000, 2000's New O Construction, and 20000.

In light of the above facts, each of the real estate in this case was originally acquired by the plaintiff, and the registration of preservation of ownership of defendant Lee Jin et al. was invalid without any cause, and the construction of defendantCC, the title holder of the registration of provisional disposition based on this, is obliged to express his/her consent for the registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership. Accordingly, the construction of defendantCC, among each of the registration of preservation of ownership in this case, is obliged to the plaintiff to express his/her intention of acceptance for the registration of cancellation of the 1/12 shares of defendant O, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000,000,000

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendantCC Construction shall be accepted for the reasons, and the remaining defendants except the construction of the defendantCC shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.