Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Res judicata of a concurrent-performance judgment in a creditor's subrogation suit
Supreme Court, Aug. 12, 2021, 2021Da215497 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 소유권이전등기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a final judgment in an earlier action between the same parties ordered a company to register the transfer of units under sales contracts as one part of a concurrent-performance judgment, is a later suit brought by a creditor subrogated to the buyer for the same registration barred by that judgment's res judicata?
Holding
Yes, it is barred. A later suit between the same parties over the same object of suit cannot be brought because it collides with the res judicata of the earlier final judgment. The res judicata of a concurrent-performance judgment reaches the debtor's obligation that is the object of that suit, and does not reach the existence or the amount of the reciprocal claim in a concurrent-performance relationship with that obligation. Where a third party, acting by subrogation to the creditor, sues the debtor and that suit shares its claim and its cause with an earlier final judgment between the creditor and the obligor, the effect of that judgment reaches the subrogation suit as well.
Points at issue, verbatim
제3자가 채권자를 대위하여 채무자를 상대로 제기한 소송과 이미 확정판결이 되어 있는 채권자와 채무자 간의 기존소송이 청구취지 및 원인을 같이하는 내용의 소송인 경우, 위 확정판결의 효력이 채권자대위권 행사에 의한 소송에도 미치는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a lawsuit filed by a third party against the debtor, subrogating the creditor, and a pre-existing lawsuit between the creditor and the debtor that has already become a final and conclusive judgment are lawsuits that are identical in the gist and grounds of the claim, whether the effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to a lawsuit brought by the exercise of the creditor's right of subrogation (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
결국 이 사건 소는 이 사건 전소에 관한 확정판결의 기판력에 저촉되어 허용될 수 없는 것이므로 권리보호의 이익이 없어 부적법하다.
Unofficial English translation
In sum, this action is precluded by the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered on the prior action in this case and thus cannot be permitted, and is improper for want of an interest in protection of rights.
Factors
- 동일한 당사자 사이에서 전소의 소송물과 동일한 소송물에 대한 후소를 제기하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극)
- 동시이행의 판결의 기판력이 동시이행관계에 있는 반대채권의 존부나 그 수액에 대하여 미치는지 여부(소극)
- 제3자가 채권자를 대위하여 채무자를 상대로 제기한 소송과 이미 확정판결이 되어 있는 채권자와 채무자 간의 기존소송이 청구취지 및 원인을 같이하는 내용의 소송인 경우, 위 확정판결의 효력이 채권자대위권 행사에 의한 소송에도 미치는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Whether a later action may be filed between the same parties over the subject matter of suit identical to that of a prior action (negative)
• Whether the res judicata of a judgment of simultaneous performance extends to the existence or the amount of the counter-claim that stands in a relationship of simultaneous performance (negative)
• Where a lawsuit filed by a third party against the debtor, subrogating the creditor, and a pre-existing lawsuit between the creditor and the debtor that has already become a final and conclusive judgment are lawsuits that are identical in the gist and grounds of the claim, whether the effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to a lawsuit brought by the exercise of the creditor's right of subrogation (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1981. 7. 7. 선고 80다2751 판결(공1981, 14160)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 80Da2751 decided July 7, 1981 (Gong 1981, 14160)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2014. 3. 27. 선고 2011다49981 판결(공2014상, 918) / [2] 대법원 2007. 2. 22. 선고 2005다17082, 2005다17099 판결 / [3] 대법원 1981. 7. 7. 선고 80다2751 판결(공1981, 14160)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the earlier final judgment ordered transfer of only a part interest in unit 101 while the later suit seeks transfer of the whole, what is left of that judgment's res judicata?
The judgment the Uijeongbu District Court gives on remand will show how the part-interest point recorded in the earlier final judgment was resolved and how the improper suit was dealt with. Any amendment to Articles 203, 216(1) and 249(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 41(1) of the Civil Execution Act or Article 404 of the Civil Code, or a later decision changing the reach of res judicata in a subrogation suit, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 21 January 2021 (2019Na213444), rejected the preliminary objection raised by Company B. It reasoned that the earlier action, Uijeongbu District Court Case 2014Gahap54851, was a claim on the agreement of around 18 January 2012 for a judgment ordering the company to register transfer of the 54 units while the outsider simultaneously paid KRW 2.25 billion, whereas this action rests on the sales contracts of 30 March 2010 and 31 December 2011, so the objects of the suits are different.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that part of the earlier action and this action seek the same relief, namely that Company B register transfer of unit 101 on the sale of 30 March 2010 and of unit 707 on the sale of 31 December 2011, the earlier claim differing only in also demanding concurrent performance. The agreement of around 18 January 2012 was, for those two units, of the same substance as the two sales contracts, which had already fixed the price, the payment dates and the special terms, so that agreement merely concretised and supplemented them, and the registered causes of transfer were the same. Even if the earlier action was not itself a subrogation suit, the two suits shared the claim and its cause over the existence of the same transfer-registration rights, so the earlier final judgment's res judicata cannot be avoided. The court below therefore misread the law on res judicata and interest in protection, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, adding that the remand court should also examine whether the earlier final judgment had ordered transfer of only a part interest in unit 101 rather than the whole.
Distinguishing conditions
- A later suit whose parties are not the same as those of the earlier final judgment, since the Court barred the later suit on that identity.
- A later suit whose claim or whose cause of claim genuinely differs from the earlier final judgment, so that it does not raise the existence of the same transfer-registration right again.
- A suit where the right claimed is different in content, such as a claim for transfer of a whole share where the earlier judgment ordered transfer only of a part interest.
Record verification notes
Set the earlier final judgment, its order and the claim and cause recorded in the complaint, against each claim in the file, and test the parties and the registered cause of transfer one by one, since the Court barred the later suit on identity of claim and cause. Then read the earlier judgment as a concurrent-performance judgment and confine its res judicata to the debtor's obligation, leaving the counter-obligation of KRW 2.25 billion and its interest outside the judgment's binding effect. Finally, look at what share interest the earlier judgment ordered transferred for unit 101, because the Court itself noted that the record suggested only part interest, and that fact may change what is left of the res judicata.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 동일한 당사자 사이에서 전소의 소송물과 동일한 소송물에 대한 후소를 제기하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 동시이행의 판결의 기판력이 동시이행관계에 있는 반대채권의 존부나 그 수액에 대하여 미치는지 여부(소극) [3] 제3자가 채권자를 대위하여 채무자를 상대로 제기한 소송과 이미 확정판결이 되어 있는 채권자와 채무자 간의 기존소송이 청구취지 및 원인을 같이하는 내용의 소송인 경우, 위 확정판결의 효력이 채권자대위권 행사에 의한 소송에도 미치는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a later action may be filed between the same parties over the subject matter of suit identical to that of a prior action (negative) [2] Whether the res judicata of a judgment of simultaneous performance extends to the existence or the amount of the counter-claim that stands in a relationship of simultaneous performance (negative) [3] Where a lawsuit filed by a third party against the debtor, subrogating the creditor, and a pre-existing lawsuit between the creditor and the debtor that has already become a final and conclusive judgment are lawsuits that are identical in the gist and grounds of the claim, whether the effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to a lawsuit brought by the exercise of the creditor's right of subrogation (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제203조, 제216조 제1항, 제249조 제1항 [2] 민사집행법 제41조 제1항, 제216조 제1항 [3] 민사소송법 제259조, 민법 제404조
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger