A. Whether a claim for cancellation of each of the above registrations is in conflict with res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment where a provisional registration has been made for the transfer of ownership or for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer for the purpose of claim security, on the ground that the obligor fully repaid the obligation after the final and conclusive judgment

(b) The case holding that the above claim contains a purport of seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration on condition of repayment of remaining debt, in the event that the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration was not well-grounded, but did not extinguish all of the debt due to mistake in calculation in the course of repayment deposit for the secured debt, since the secured debt remains due to the extinguishment of the debt;

A. Even if a provisional registration for the transfer of ownership or for the preservation of the right to claim transfer of ownership has been made by a final and conclusive judgment, if each of the above registrations has been made for the purpose of securing an obligation, claiming the cancellation of each of the above registrations on the ground that the obligor fully repaid the obligation to the obligee after the final and conclusive judgment, cannot be deemed to

B. The case holding that the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is also included in the debtor's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on condition of the repayment of the remaining debt which became final and conclusive, in case where there is no reason to claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of the extinguishment of the secured debt, but the debtor was found to have failed to extinguish the entire debt due to error in calculation in the course of paying the secured debt.

(a)Article 372 of the Civil Code : (a) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) Article 188 of the same Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2270 delivered on September 22, 1981 (Gong1981, 14371)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na26572 delivered on March 20, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendants' attorney

According to relevant evidence and records, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to have erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

Even if provisional registration for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendants or for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer on the real estate of this case was made by a final and conclusive judgment, as long as each of the above registrations was made for the purpose of securing claims, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each of the above registrations on the ground that the plaintiff fully repaid the amount of debts after the final and conclusive judgment to the defendants cannot be deemed to conflict with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, there is no reason to criticize that the lower court erred by misapprehending

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The court below held that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration on the ground of the extinguishment of the secured obligation as to the real estate in this case, since there still remains a debt covered by the ownership transfer registration in Defendant 1's name, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration on the ground of the extinguishment of the secured obligation, but the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration on the condition that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration was made on the condition that the remainder of the secured obligation could not be extinguished due to an error in the calculation in the course of paying and depositing the secured obligation. This decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below which recognized the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 18,00,000 to the defendant 1 by proxy for the above defendant 2 shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles of repayment or by failing to properly examine, as in the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)