1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance should explain this case are as follows. [In the event that the issue of the prior suit becomes the prior question even if the legal relationship of the prior suit becomes the subject matter of res judicata does not become the subject matter of the subsequent suit, the judgment of the final judgment of the previous suit is the prior question of the subsequent suit and res judicata becomes effective. Thus, if a lawsuit is instituted against the same defendant again after the judgment on the claim for ownership confirmation as the cause of claim based on ownership becomes final and conclusive, the judgment on the existence of ownership at the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit cannot be made as binding upon the judgment on the existence of ownership at the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit, and the court cannot make any different judgment as to this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da4684, Dec. 27, 1994). However, since the plaintiff's new claim for the removal of ownership at 201Mo7503, which affected the plaintiff's new claim for ownership by the final and conclusive judgment against B.130 m20.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is examined.