(a) The boundary of the ownership of land between the persons who purchased the entire house when the location and land register are inconsistent with the truth and accuracy because the building was divided into a fence by putting the several buildings on one parcel of land into a wall and the registration of partition was made by putting them down on the land;

B. Scope of res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment

A. As long as the ownership on one parcel of land was divided by removing five buildings from the fence, the ownership of the land between the persons who purchased the entire house and the person who purchased the house shall be on the boundary of the fence, even if the registration of partition of the land is different from the actual location or cadastral area of the land;

B. Since a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect only on the real estate including the text, the final and conclusive judgment ordering the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration becomes final and conclusive in the text, and it cannot be deemed that res judicata effect extends to the existence of ownership of the real estate, unless otherwise expressed in the text.

[Judgment of the court below]

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

Daegu District Court Decision 74Na239 delivered on May 12, 1975

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first ground for appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) attorney is examined.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party 2 was divided into the above 42-7 pieces of land in the middle-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and that the non-party 2 did not have any influence on the above 242-7 square meters on the register (the non-party 2 was divided into the above 4-dong Special Metropolitan City and the non-party 2 did not have any effect on the above 5-dong Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Municipal City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Municipal City Special Metropolitan City Municipal City Land Ownership of the above Do Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Land Ownership of the above Do Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Land Ownership of the above Do Special Metropolitan City by the non-party 2. The non-party 2 Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Land Ownership, etc., and the non-party 4 Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Land Ownership and new Housing Ownership by the ownership of each lot.

It cannot be seen that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party Kim Jong-soo (the former owner of the plaintiff) against the above 242-25 site was made in accordance with the agreement between the defendant Lee Jong-ho (the former owner of the plaintiff's land) and the non-party Lee Jong-ho (the former owner of the plaintiff's land, etc.), and it cannot be seen that there was any evidence to recognize that the registration was made in accordance with the agreement between the defendant Lee Jong-ho (the former owner of the plaintiff's land, etc.) and the former owner of the non-party Kim Jong-ho

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined as follows: even if the defendant et al. orders the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with a final judgment such as the lawsuit which is based on the above final judgment, the final judgment has res judicata effect only in relation to the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer; therefore, the order of the above judgment is merely nothing more than ordering the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer; thus, the existence of ownership in the real estate shall not be considered as res judicata effect. In the case of the defendant et al., the plaintiff's substantive ownership in the part of the land of this case is denied; on the premise that the defendant et al., requested the cancellation of the registration of ownership in the plaintiff's name on the part of this case on the premise that the ownership in this part is against the defendant et al

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)