A. Whether the res judicata effect of the consent protocol in a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration, which is a cause of sale, affects the existence of sale or ownership ownership (negative)

B. One co-owner's request for cancellation of registration of invalidity of cause as to only share of the other co-owner (affirmative)

A. Res judicata of a protocol of recognition and recognition regarding a claim for the performance of a procedure for ownership transfer registration based on a sale is effective only on the existence of a claim for registration. It does not extend to the existence of a claim contract which is the cause of a claim for registration, or the ownership of the subject real estate. Therefore, the defendant, who recognized and recognized the above, may seek confirmation of ownership against the plaintiff or subsequent purchaser who made the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the recognition and recognition

(b) One co-owner's act of preserving the article jointly owned may demand the cancellation of the registration of invalidation of cause as to only share of the other co-owner.

A. Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 265 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 72Da746 delivered on May 27, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 79Da1218 delivered on September 25, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 71Da1831 delivered on November 30, 1971; 81Da465 delivered on March 9, 1982

Chang-ray

[Judgment of the court below] and five others

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na7 delivered on January 29, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below asserted that the above real estate was purchased on December 13, 1970 from 20 persons, including the plaintiff, which was registered as joint ownership of 20 persons including the plaintiff (3 539 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu) and that the above real estate was purchased on December 13, 1970, and filed a lawsuit against 20 plaintiffs around June 1975 against the Gwangju District Court for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the above sale, and held that the plaintiff's 20 persons, including the non-party 20 persons (the defendants in the above case), including the plaintiff, were not entitled to the registration of ownership transfer under his name after completion of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant Kim Dong-dong's legal representative, and that the remaining co-owner's right of ownership transfer was not valid before the plaintiff's death was revoked under the name of 3 lots, and that the plaintiff's remaining co-owner's co-ownership's right of ownership was not valid.

However, the judgment of the court below as to a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase does not extend to the existence of a claim contract which serves as the cause of the claim for the registration, or to the ownership of the target real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da1218, Sept. 25, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 72Da746, May 27, 1975). Thus, even if the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant under the above recognition and recognition clause having the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff still has a co-ownership right to the real estate for the reason that the non-existence of the sale and purchase, which is the cause of the above registration, did not exist. Further, if one co-owner of the real estate becomes aware of the purport of res judicata effect of the above part of the judgment below as to the common property, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the ownership right in the above case cannot be asserted to the extent that it does not conflict with the judgment below's res judicata effect.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)