Whether res judicata effect of a lawsuit for registration of ownership transfer based on sale extends to a lawsuit for registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of prescription

Since a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration and a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration due to the completion of acquisition by prescription are separate objects of lawsuit different causes of the claim for ownership transfer registration, res judicata of the previous lawsuit does not extend to the subsequent suit.

Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1986, 1987 Decided December 30, 1969

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2494, 2505 delivered on December 29, 1979

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the original and the defendant's attorney are examined together.

기록에 의하면 원고의 피고에 대한 이 사건 대지의 인도, 판시 대지상에 건립된 피고 소유의 건물부분철거 및 피고가 위 대지를 불법 점유하였음을 전제로 한 손해배상 청구들에 대하여 원심은 그 판시와 같이 원고청구중 손해배상부분의 일부를 배척한 이외에는 원고청구를 인용하고 피고 소송대리인의 이 사건 대지에 대한 취득시효 완성으로 원고청구에 응할 수 없다는 항변에 대하여 피고가 이 사건 대지를 52.1.24 원고의 선대로부터 샀다 하여 원고(후술하는 확정판결의 피고)에 대한 이 사건 대지에 관한 소유권이전등기 청구권이 피고(위 확정판결의 원고)에게 없다는 77.9.13자 대법원의 상고기각 판결이 확정된 이상 확정판결에 의한 판단의 통용성으로 원ㆍ피고간에는 이사건 대지에 관하여는 피고가 그 소유권이전등기 청구권을 주장할 수 없다고 판단하고 이 판단을 전제로 하여 판시와 같이 피고의 위 취득시효 완성의 항변을 배척하였다.

However, the final and conclusive judgment was based on the premise that the defendant's claim for ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of sale and purchase, and the defendant's defense for the completion of prescription is based on the premise that the ownership transfer registration claim is made on the ground of the completion of the above acquisition, and the judgment ordering the registration without confirming the grounds for registration in the trial of the transfer registration procedure is not different from the methods of attack and defense as to the same claim, in light of the legal principle that the registration procedure is illegal, and thus the judgment ordering the registration of the transfer registration claim is the difference between the causes of the claim and the causes of the claim for the transfer registration. Therefore, the previous suit and the principal suit are a judgment on a separate subject matter of lawsuit, and the res judicata of the previous suit cannot be seen as the principal lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 68Da123, Mar. 19, 68; 69Da1986, Dec. 30, 699). The judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the objective scope of res judicata and the defendant's appeal.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded, and the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff is dismissed. The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)