Whether res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment to effect the registration of ownership transfer for B's real estate simultaneously with the registration of ownership transfer for B's real estate is attached to the conditions of simultaneous performance.

“A” is against the res judicata effect of the above final judgment that “B” is liable for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to “B” even if “B” fails to perform the opposite obligation in the final judgment to comply with the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale and purchase of the instant real estate from “B” and at the same time, “B” is liable to perform the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to “B”.

Mental Order

Attorneys Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Cheongju District Court Decision 74Na39 delivered on October 29, 1974

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below is clear that each registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendants with respect to the real estate in this case cannot be viewed as a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, even if the court below viewed each of the above registration as a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and recognized that the judgment of the court below was an invalid registration, and determined that the original judgment was contrary to the previous precedents

With respect to the second ground:

In light of the records, the final and conclusive judgment at issue in this case is the decision that, in its original decision, the defendant's mental order (the plaintiff in this case) takes the procedure of ownership transfer registration for the sale of the specific part of the 8-30 site in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, 1967 on May 23, 1967, and at the same time takes the procedure of ownership transfer registration for the sale of the real estate in this case to the defendant South and North Korea (the defendant in this case) on the same day. The above final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect on the part indicated in the above order (the existence and amount of opposing claims in the simultaneous performance relation). Thus, there is no room for res judicata effect on the above claim for ownership transfer registration. However, even if the plaintiff did not perform concurrent performance opposite obligations indicated in the main sentence of the final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff is not obligated to perform the ownership transfer registration for the above real estate in this case, and there is no ground of final appeal to the effect that the judgment below's final and conclusive judgment cannot be accepted.

With respect to the third point:

The author argues that there was an error of law's interpretation in the original judgment, and that such a ground is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case, which is a small amount of case.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)