Plaintiff (Attorney Ansan-do et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorney Mag-Ba, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 18, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(1) As to Defendant 5 (Defendant 2 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who succeeded to the rights of Nonparty 2: (2) granted the execution clause to Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who succeeded to the rights of Nonparty 2: 84/1782: 84/1782: 84/1782: 84/1782: 84/1782: (2) granted the execution clause to Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who succeeded to the rights of Nonparty 2, for compulsory execution against Defendant 6; and (3) granted the execution clause to the Plaintiff by Nonparty 1, 2, 3, and 1782: 14/1782: 174/1782: 178/178; and (1) granted the agreement to the Plaintiff by succession to the rights of Nonparty 2; and (2) granted the execution clause to the Plaintiff and the Defendants 28182/17/29/17/7.

1. Basic facts

A. Possession and inheritance of each real estate of this case

(1) The Republic of Korea originally owned a forest land of 3,094,104 square meters (number 1 omitted), forest land of 3,094,104 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Magwon-gun, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Paris (number 2 omitted), which is a forest land of 13,663,797.02 square meters in Hawon-gun, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, and a forest land of 29,240,024.95 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), including the instant real estate, owned by the State.

(2) Nonparty 3, 4, and Nonparty 5, both of whom were the husband and wife of Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, who were the son of Nonparty 5 (Ordinance No. 10 of June 20, 191), respectively, transferred each of the instant real estate to the State on July 12, 1943, and completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the name of the State. However, during the Korean War, the public records, such as the registry and the forest land register, were destroyed due to the Korean War. After that, Nonparty 3, 4, and 5 died, and Nonparty 6 (the inheritance shares 7/198), Nonparty 1 (the inheritance shares 42/198), Nonparty 6, 7,8, 9, 10, and 11 jointly inherited Nonparty 3,4, and 5.

B. Sales contract between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2

(1) On September 28, 1988, Nonparty 12, who represented the Plaintiff, purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 in KRW 80,00,00,00, and confirmed that the instant real estate was owned by Nonparty 3, 4, and 5, and Nonparty 2 purchased the shares from Nonparty 3, 4, and 5 and transferred them to Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and Nonparty 2 paid KRW 68,00,000 out of the sales price.

(2) On November 12, 198, Nonparty 2 purchased 42/198 shares in the instant real estate from Nonparty 1 among Nonparty 3, 4, and 5, and Defendant 6 on the same day to KRW 7,270,00 (7/198 shares in the instant real estate, KRW 2,270,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 7/198 shares in the instant real estate, and KRW 7/198 shares in the instant real estate, and KRW 5,00,000, KRW 6,7,8,9,9,100 shares in the remainder of the instant real estate, which are the successors. However, Nonparty 2 did not purchase the inheritance shares from Nonparty 6, 7,8,9,10, and 11.

C. The prior ruling of this case against Nonparty 1 and Defendant 6 and the agreement on partial transfer of shares against the Plaintiff

(1) On June 24, 1992, Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit against Defendant 6 and Nonparty 1 for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the agreement under paragraph (2) of the above B (2) against Dong Branch of the Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 92Gahap6837), and on June 24, 1992, Nonparty 2 was rendered a favorable judgment that “Defendant 6 shall carry out the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale on November 12, 198 with respect to shares of 42/198 out of the pertinent real estate,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 12, 192 (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

(2) As Nonparty 2 purchased an inheritance share from all of Nonparty 3, 4, and 5 and failed to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the above agreement, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Nonparty 2 at the Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office around the end of 1993 against the Plaintiff in fraud No. 93 type No. 10176, and Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the shares in the instant key real estate purchased by Nonparty 2 from Nonparty 1 and Defendant 6 to the end of May 197, on behalf of Nonparty 33,00,000,000 the remaining amount to be returned to the Plaintiff.

D. Inheritance of the parties to the prior judgment of this case

(1) On February 9, 1990, Nonparty 1, who was the defendant of the above preceding judgment, died, and Defendant 5 solely inherited Nonparty 1.

(2) On January 20, 200, Nonparty 2, Defendant 2, 3, and 4, who was the plaintiff of the above preceding judgment, died on January 20, 200, were jointly inherited at the rate of 2/9:2/9.

E. Progress of the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration between the Plaintiff and the Defendants

On August 25, 200, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the ground that, around August 25, 200, the Government Branch of the Seoul District Court rendered 2000Kahap7193, the Plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate. On June 27, 2001, the part of the claim against the Defendants 5 and 6, which was sought by the above court in subrogation of Nonparty 2’s successors, was rejected on the ground that “The part of the claim against the Defendants 5 and 6, which was sought by subrogation of Nonparty 2 from the above court in subrogation of Nonparty 2’s successors, had already been claimed against the third obligor 1 and Defendant 6 with a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said court, the Plaintiff, who is the obligee to whom the said judgment is effective, exercised the right to exercise the same claim, was unlawful.” The part of the claim against Nonparty 2’s inheritors seeking the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the sales contract against the Plaintiff’s heir.

F. Division and registration of the instant real estate

The key real estate of this case was divided into the forests and fields listed in paragraphs (1) through (8) among the annexed Table 1 attached hereto on August 26, 1991, but registration of preservation of ownership has been completed at the same rate as the annexed Table 2 attached hereto, at the same time as the owner's column in the relevant forest register was restored on September 30, 2009 at the wind where the confirmation of equity right holders with respect to some shares is delayed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 evidence, Eul 1 (the same as evidence 3-1), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate by the government branch of the Seoul District Court on June 27, 2001, against Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, pursuant to the Seoul District Court Decision 2000Gahap7193 Decided June 27, 2001, and sought the grant of the succeeding execution clause, such as the statement in the purport of the claim, by asserting that Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who is the inheritor of Nonparty 2, is subrogated to exercise the right to apply for the succession execution clause against Defendant 5 and 6 with respect to the instant preceding judgment.

B. As to this, the judgment of this case rendered by the defendant 5 and 6 against the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 was finalized on July 12, 1992. The non-party 2's right to claim the transfer of ownership expired after ten years from the right to claim the transfer of ownership. ② The non-party 1 had already died on February 9, 1990 as at the time when the non-party 2 filed the lawsuit against the non-party 1 due to the prior judgment of this case. Thus, the above prior judgment was declared as a party to the deceased and became final and conclusive, and thus the successor to the deceased's heir does not have res judicata effect. Thus, the right to claim the transfer of the execution clause of this case should be denied.

3. Determination

In this case, a person who succeeds to the status of the party shall be the successor only when the claim which is the object of a lawsuit is a real right claim with the large effect, and when the claim which is the object of a lawsuit is a claim which has the large effect, the successor shall not be the successor (see Supreme Court Decisions 74Da1046, Dec. 10, 1974; 90Da964, Jan. 15, 1991; 92Da25151, Feb. 12, 1993).

In light of the above legal principles, the subject matter of the prior judgment of this case by Nonparty 2 is the right of claim for ownership transfer registration based on sale against Nonparty 1 and Defendant 6. Thus, prior to the registration of ownership transfer under the above judgment, not only Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who was transferred the status of a person entitled to registration by Nonparty 2, but also Defendant 5, who succeeded Nonparty 1, the person liable for registration, cannot be deemed as the successor after the conclusion of argument under the effect of the prior judgment (the res judicata effect).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants on the premise that Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 are successors after the closing of argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Chang-chul

1) The above judgment of 200Gahap7193 ruled that “The pertinent real estate was 3,094,104 square meters at the time of the cadastral restoration on June 28, 198, but its area was 3,065,597 square meters since it was divided on August 26, 1991, the pertinent real estate became 3,065,597 square meters,” and that the registration procedure should be implemented only with respect to 3,065,597 square meters among the pertinent real estate.”