Whether res judicata effect of the judgment of a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust affects the existence of title trust of the subject real estate (negative)

In a case where the subject matter of a claim for ownership transfer registration is the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust for the dispute real estate in which the copy of the complaint is served, the objective scope of res judicata effect of the judgment in the lawsuit is limited only to the existence of a claim for registration contained in the text of the judgment, not to affect the existence of title trust of the subject real estate.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

Supreme Court Decision 82Da493, 82Meu1237 Decided December 28, 1982 (Gong1983, 359) Supreme Court Decision 88Da24622 Decided January 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 451) Supreme Court Decision 91Da8159 Decided December 13, 1991 (Gong192, 501)

Lee Ho-ho et al. (Attorneys Kim Won-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Choi Jae-in (Attorney Hwang Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na4452 delivered on July 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the subject matter of the claim for ownership transfer registration filed against the defendant in lieu of the above Park Jong-won and Park Jong-nam on behalf of the above Park Jong-nam in Seoul District Court Branch of 95 Gahap2012 can be known that the subject matter of the lawsuit is the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the above Park Jong-dae on the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case and the cancellation of title trust between the defendant. Thus, the objective scope of res judicata effect of the judgment in the lawsuit is limited only to the existence of the right to claim registration included in the text of the judgment, and it does not affect the existence of title trust of the real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da8159, Dec. 13, 191). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the lawsuit of this case is an initial double lawsuit, or the res judicata effect of

Therefore, it is clear that the court below's illegality in the above hearing did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the above Park Jong-he purchased the real estate in this case under the name of the defendant who is the husband and entrusted the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant under the name of the defendant. In light of the records and comparison of related evidences, the court below's above fact-finding is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, omission of judgment, incomplete hearing, and non-exercise of the right to explanation. There is no reason

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)