In a case where an obligor files a lawsuit that is identical to the purport and cause of the claim while the obligee's subrogation lawsuit is pending, whether the prohibition of duplicate lawsuit conflicts with

If the plaintiff has already filed a lawsuit against the same defendant on behalf of the plaintiff by subrogation of the plaintiff by the obligee before filing a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and the plaintiff is still pending in the lawsuit, the two lawsuits are identical in substance even if they differ from each other, so the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff is contrary to the prohibition of so-called duplicate lawsuit under Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 404(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4540, May 22, 1992) (Law No. 1992, 1968) (Law No. 1992, 1968)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 93Na5448 delivered on May 6, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the facts that the non-party had already filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this case by subrogation of the plaintiffs, the purport of the lawsuit in this case, and the cause of the claim. If the facts are identical to this, the non-party's lawsuit filed by subrogation of the plaintiffs by subrogation of the plaintiffs pursuant to the subrogation right under Article 404 (1) of the Civil Act and the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case are identical to the lawsuit in this case, even though the parties are different, the lawsuit in this case cannot be viewed as the same lawsuit in substance. Thus, the lawsuit in this case does not conflict with the prohibition of double lawsuit under Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da351, Jan. 29, 197; Supreme Court Decision 76Da2570, Feb. 8, 197; Supreme Court Decision 91Da4187, May 22, 1992).

Therefore, all appeals of this case are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)