The scope of res judicata effect of final and conclusive judgment accepting the request for cancellation of ownership transfer registration

Since registration of ownership preservation on real estate is null and void, registration of ownership transfer on the ground that registration of ownership transfer is null and void, the final and conclusive judgment which cited a request for registration of ownership transfer becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment only affects the existence of a claim for registration of cancellation which was the subject matter of the lawsuit, and does not affect the existence of ownership on the basis of the basic real estate itself, and even in the case where settlement has been established in the lawsuit that, as a real right claim based on ownership on the real estate and takes over under certain conditions during the lawsuit pending in the lawsuit, and the conditions have been fulfilled and the delivery execution has been completed, res judicata effect of the protocol does not extend only to the existence of a claim for

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1335 delivered on October 13, 1981, 80Da148 delivered on September 25, 1984

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na2415 decided July 18, 1984

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text, i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of such legal relations. Therefore, since the registration of ownership preservation on real estate is null and void, registration of ownership transfer becomes final and conclusive on the ground that registration of ownership transfer is also null and void, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment does not affect the existence of the right to claim registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of the right to claim registration of ownership, which was the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of the right to claim registration of ownership, which was the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not extend to the existence of the right to claim the delivery of real estate under certain conditions while the procedure is pending (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da135, Oct. 13, 198; 200Da8484, Aug. 25, 1984).

Therefore, it is reasonable to say that there is no res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment as to the existence or absence of land ownership ownership of a third party who succeeded to ownership by purchasing land from the losing land owner after the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing in the lawsuit demanding cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and completing the registration of ownership transfer, and there is no difference in the case of a third party who purchased land from a person who is subject to execution of land transfer due to settlement in

In such a case, the right to claim the confirmation of ownership that the above third party has become the general effect of the right to own land lawfully acquired, and it cannot be deemed that the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer or the right to claim the transfer of land itself has become a result of succession to the subject matter of the lawsuit. Therefore, the above third party cannot be deemed a successor after the closing of argument in the final judgment

According to the records, the land of this case was registered in the name of the non-party 1, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the non-party 2 on the ground of sale and purchase in the name of the non-party 2. The plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer, while the non-party 3 purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1, the non-party 3 purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1, and purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 3 without any ground for double registration of ownership transfer, and the judgment was finalized, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the non-party 2 while the lawsuit was pending, the above non-party 3 filed a lawsuit against the non-party 2 seeking the transfer of the land of this case, and the non-party 2 acquired a settlement by delivery to the above non-party 3 under certain conditions and obtained the ownership transfer registration of this case's land from the above non-party 3.

The judgment of the court below is in a position to be cancelled by the above judgment in light of the personal scope of res judicata effect unless the final and conclusive judgment is cancelled due to retrial, etc., or in light of the purport of the succession execution clause system, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 corporation, which is related to the part of the land of this case, is in a position to be cancelled by the above judgment, and in case the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 2 corporation, which is related to the non-party 1 corporation, is cancelled by the above judgment, the non-party 2 and the non-party 34 of the judgment among the land of this case, which is based on the above non-party 2's registration of transfer of ownership after the closure of argument in the second instance judgment, shall be a name to be cancelled. Thus, the plaintiffs in such position shall not seek the confirmation that the part 5,334 of the judgment of this case among the land of this case is owned by the plaintiffs 3 and the transfer of the land in dispute executed by the above protocol.

However, as seen earlier, if the res judicata effect of the final judgment of the claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration or of the protocol of conciliation of claim for delivery does not affect the right to claim for cancellation registration or the existence of the right to claim for delivery itself, which is the premise thereof, as seen earlier, the judgment of denying the acquisition of ownership of the land in this case in the previous lawsuit is included in the reasoning of the judgment, and, on the other hand, even if the content of affirming the acquisition of ownership by Nonparty 3, the defendant who is the succeeding party to the same part of the land in the previous lawsuit, is included in the reasoning of the protocol of compromise, unless it is indicated in the text of the judgment or the protocol of compromise, it is obvious that the judgment of existence of ownership in this case cannot be bound in light of the legal principles of res judicata. Thus, the court below should have deliberated more whether the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of ownership and the claim for the transfer of land are the land in this case, regardless of the allegations by the parties and the purport of the res judicata effect of the final judgment and protocol of conciliation and the system of succession.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the 5,334 Geng-gun ( Address omitted), which was registered under Defendant 1’s name, only exists on the registry, and that the actual registration was made without any substance that did not exist or did not exist from the beginning, and that the land in this case is legally confirmed that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs who succeeded to the land in this case should be cancelled by the final judgment and protocol of the previous lawsuit, and that the ownership of the same part of this case is determined as belonging to the defendant’s successor. As such, the lower court determined that the claim for confirmation of ownership in this case and the claim for transfer of land were all groundless, and thereby, determined that the res judicata effect of the final judgment and protocol of the final judgment were transferred to the plaintiffs in this case, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine of res judicata effect or the execution clause of succession, or by failing to exhaust all the deliberation and determination of the allegations and evidence of the parties, and thereby, it constitutes grounds for reversal of Article 12(2) of the Act on the Promotion, etc. of Litigation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in order to have the court below render a new trial and determination, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)