Whether or not there exists a benefit of protecting the rights of separate lawsuits filed on the ground that the lawsuit filed by subrogation of the seller is the owner of the real estate after the lawsuit is finalized.

The Plaintiff, as the buyer of the real estate in this case, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration under the name of the Defendant on behalf of the seller, but lost, and then files a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration on the ground that he/she is the owner of the above real estate as a separate lawsuit, the above two lawsuits are different. Thus, the above two lawsuits are different in each other, and the Plaintiff did not actively assert that he/she is the owner in the previous lawsuit. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the above lawsuit cannot be deemed an unlawful lawsuit that does not have

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu198 delivered on June 11, 1985 (Dongun)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 83Na402 delivered on December 9, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Before determining the grounds of appeal, this paper examined ex officio.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants on November 3, 197, on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party, on behalf of the non-party's heir, who was the seller, on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case, and sought cancellation of the registration without any registration in the name of the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer") on behalf of the non-party, which was the plaintiff, but the plaintiff lost the plaintiff, on the ground that the above real estate is the owner of the real estate of this case at this time, and since each registration in the name of the defendants is invalid on the ground that it is the owner of the real estate of this case at this time, each registration in the name of the defendants was made invalid on the ground that the plaintiff is an owner of the real estate of this case at this time, the court below held that the plaintiff could not actively claim the confirmation of ownership in this case and the registration in the name of the defendants, which could not be seen as an issue of the right protection of this case.

2. However, according to the facts established by the court below, the previous suit filed by the plaintiff as the purchaser of the real estate of this case and it is clear that the plaintiff claims the plaintiff as the owner of the real estate of this case on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate of this case. Thus, the issues of the two lawsuits are different. Accordingly, the above two lawsuits are different under these circumstances. Thus, the mere fact that the plaintiff did not actively claim that the previous suit is the owner of the real estate of this case, and the previous suit was filed as a separate suit, barring special circumstances, cannot be deemed as an unlawful suit that does not constitute a violation of the principle of good faith in protecting rights. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)