The objective scope of res judicata

The res judicata of the judgment dismissing a claim for confirmation of ownership is limited to the part that confirms that the plaintiff has no ownership in relation to the defendant, and it does not affect the part that the claim was rejected.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Republic of Korea and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2444 delivered on March 15, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal 1, 2, and 3 are determined.

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na1244 and 1245 of this case claimed that Defendant 2 of this case would be the plaintiff and the plaintiff of this case would be excluded from confirming ownership and interfering with the exercise of ownership. The defendant (Defendant 2 of this case) sought cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff of this case against the plaintiff of this case (the plaintiff of this case). The plaintiff of this case's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff of this case was dismissed because both of the plaintiff of this case was rejected. The plaintiff of this case's claim for confirmation of ownership was rejected, and there was no effect to confirm that the plaintiff of this case has ownership to this case. The res judicata effect in the previous lawsuit is limited to the part that confirmed that the plaintiff (Defendant 2 of this case) has no ownership to this case's land in relation to the defendant (the plaintiff of this case). The plaintiff of this case's claim for rejection of the plaintiff's claim does not affect the res judicata effect of this case's farmland distribution as to this case's land distribution to the plaintiff of this case.

However, since the plaintiff seeks confirmation of ownership of the land in this case against the defendant, although the previous suit and the parties to the lawsuit are identical, the subject matter of lawsuit are different lawsuits, and if the original judgment rejected the plaintiff's claim in this case and the defendant 2 had ownership on the land in this case, it is against the res judicata of the previous suit, and thus, it is erroneous in law. However, since the original judgment is judged that the farmland distribution against the defendant 2 on the land in this case has become effective as the grounds for the previous suit, it cannot be said that the original judgment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles of res judicata, and there is no argument to criticize the original judgment as a dissenting opinion.

In addition, according to the theory of reasoning in the original judgment, since farmland distribution against Defendant 2 was finalized on October 20, 1959, in this case, there is no room to apply Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act in this case. In addition, this case is separate from the previous lawsuit, and this case is not the same case, and the original judgment is valid in this case, and there is no illegality in violation of Article 18 of the Court Organization Act in the original judgment.

Therefore, the paper is without merit.

Judgment on the same ground 4

It cannot be said that there is no violation of evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence-based evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kimchi-bak (Presiding Justice)