Request for cancellation of registration due to the invalidation of a prop which has lost farmland ownership;

Even if a prop has lost his farmland ownership due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, since he has the right to receive land price compensation, he has the legal interest to request the cancellation of registration for invalidation of cause of the farmland.

Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

64Da103 delivered on September 22, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 8137 delivered on September 22, 1964, Decision 64Da707 delivered on September 30, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 8134 delivered on September 8, 197, Decision 226(7) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 226Da919 delivered on September 30, 1964)

Shipbuilding Agricultural Corporation

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (62 Ghana6771) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

This case is remanded to Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

The defendant shall execute the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff as the Government Registry of Seoul Northern District Court No. 2655, Aug. 23, 1957, as to the 152 Miscellaneous land of 13,955 and 149 Miscellaneous land of 149 Miscellaneous land of 155,000 and 2,228.

The court costs shall be borne by the defendant, and the defendant shall dismiss the plaintiff's principal lawsuit against the main defense of safety.

The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has filed a judgment that the same judgment as the cancellation of the original judgment and the entries in the purport of the claim shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and the defendant has filed a judgment dismissing the appeal.

(1) We examine the defendant's main defense of safety.

Since the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the procedure to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of real estate (No. 1798 of the same court) for the same cause as this case with respect to the above land at the Seoul Special District Court, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the same cause as to the same object between the parties concerned is unlawful in conflict with res judicata. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer is one of the evidence No. 1-2, 3 (No. 4 of the same judgment), and the whole purport of the land transfer as the party's change, which is the cause of the claim, and the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer was only farmland owned by the plaintiff, and it is not consistent with the law No. 97 of the first instance court's decision that the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer was rejected at the same time as that of the above 1-2, 1-2, 3 (No. 9 of the above judgment) and that the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer was rejected at the same time as the above 1-2, 9-2, and thus, it is not consistent with the defendant's co-2's.

Therefore, since the previous suit and the principal suit are identical to the parties and the cause of the claim, the res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit shall be deemed to affect the principal suit, and therefore, the subsequent suit cannot be asserted or judged inconsistent with the judgment in the previous suit.

(2) The plaintiff alleged in the previous suit that the land in this case was entirely miscellaneous in the previous suit, but it was claimed as miscellaneous land in the previous suit, and the res judicata effect of the previous suit does not extend to the previous suit since the subject matter of the lawsuit is different from that of the previous suit in the previous suit. The judgment of the previous suit does not relate to the existence of substantive rights relations, but the plaintiff's claim does not have any legal interest to file a lawsuit (defect of the requirements for protection of rights). Since the judgment in the previous suit is dismissed for the reason that the res judicata effect of the previous suit does not extend to the previous suit, the judgment in the previous suit is asserted that the ground before the closing of oral pleadings (the first suit due to flood in the previous suit in 1946) (the first suit in the previous suit in this case was asserted as farmland), but it cannot be recognized that there was a change in the identity of the previous suit merely because it was not a mere defect in the requirements for protection of rights and the judgment in the previous suit in the previous suit in the previous suit in this regard to the previous suit in this regard.

(3) In addition, in light of the purport of the precedents that there is a legal interest in restoring the title of registration when the title of registration is transferred to the Government without any cause, since the title of the owner of the farmland is entitled to receive farmland compensation for the Government, the judgment of the previous suit is unreasonable. If the land was previously established, the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant is made without any proof of the government office where the title of the land is located. Therefore, the plaintiff, who is the title holder of the real ownership, is legally entitled to claim cancellation of the invalid registration and restoration of the title of the registration. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the main suit is asserted that it should be accepted, and thus, the title holder shall not be able to obtain evidence No. 2, No. 7, and No. 10, No. 10-1, No. 16, and No. 17, No. 7, which are the date of entry of the previous suit to the court below's decision that the entries of the court below's decision regarding the ownership transfer registration in the above land were not established by the evidence No. 17, No.

In addition, the facts that this land is farmland and the fact that the plaintiff has lost its ownership as farmland purchased from the State and the land was already determined by the previous suit. In such cases, even if the plaintiff has lost its real ownership, if the title of the registration has been transferred at will to a third party without any reason, the plaintiff is obligated to restore the title of the registration and to cooperate in the registration of ownership transfer to the real purchaser (the state), and the title holder of the farmland has the right to receive farmland compensation as the owner. Therefore, the plaintiff has a legal interest in recovering the title of the registration by claiming the cancellation of the registration of invalidation which was arbitrarily caused without any reason by the third party, such as this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for cancellation of the registration of invalidation of the ground is justified, and therefore, it shall be accepted. Thus, without a judgment on the merits, the original judgment which dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that there is a defect in the requirements for the lawsuit, is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal on the merits return to that of the grounds, so it shall return to the original judgment which revoked the original judgment in accordance with Articles 386 and 388 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it shall be remanded to the original court

Judge Term of Office (Presiding Judge)