(a) Whether a provisional registration exists where any real estate on which the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed prior to the provisional registration of the right to claim a transfer of ownership is made, and the purchase price has been paid in full due to the seizure and public sale (negative);

B. Whether res judicata of a judgment dismissing a provisional registration which became final and conclusive, affects the judgment as to the validity of the provisional registration indicated in the grounds for the judgment (negative)

A. Before a provisional registration was made to preserve the right to claim a transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on real estate, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed in the name of the non-party, and if the purchaser paid the purchase price in full due to a seizure disposition conducted by the owner on the grounds of delinquent local taxes in arrears, the above provisional registration is extinguished, and accordingly the above provisional registration is also extinguished, and the above provisional registration is also extinguished. Therefore, the above provisional registration is subject to a request for cancellation, and even if the above provisional registration is not cancelled due to a sudden cause, the above provisional registration has no effect of priority preservation.

B. Even if the judgment against the plaintiff was rendered in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of provisional registration, which is the previous suit, and the judgment became final and conclusive, res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment only affects the existence of the right to claim cancellation of provisional registration, and it does not extend to judgment as to the validity

A. Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act; Articles 608(2) and 661(1)2 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 190); Article 77 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Ma1169 delivered on April 28, 198 (Gong1988,908) (Gong1988,908) Decided July 25, 1989 (Gong1989,1282) 89Ma778 delivered on November 6, 1989 (Gong1990,4466). Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1958 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,722) (Gong1990,451)

Cho Jin-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Kim Jong-won

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na21021 Decided November 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on March 13, 1981 that, prior to the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff on February 3, 1981, the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage was completed in the name of the non-party Kim Tae-tae at the time of July 1 of the same year, and if a public auction was conducted on the basis of delinquent local taxes on the non-party Kim Tae-tae and the purchaser paid the purchase price in full, the above right to collateral exists prior to the above provisional registration at the time of the public auction shall be extinguished and accordingly the above right to provisional registration shall also be extinguished. Thus, the above provisional registration shall be subject to entrustment of cancellation, and even if the above provisional registration has been completed, the above provisional registration has no priority preservation effect, and the above provisional registration shall not be deemed unlawful if the judgment of the court below conflicts with the purport of the judgment of the court below on August 21, 1984, or the above judgment is contrary to the purport of the judgment of the court below that the above provisional registration is unlawful.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The judgment of the court below is that even if the judgment against the plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of provisional registration, which is the previous lawsuit, was rendered and the judgment became final and conclusive, res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment only affects the existence of the right to claim cancellation of provisional registration, and it does not extend to the judgment in determining the validity of provisional registration indicated in the grounds for the judgment, and it is different from the case of the party member citing the arguments, and it does not constitute any of the subparagraphs of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won