건물명도
The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.
The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff and the plaintiff for retrial).
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, may be recognized by the court of this case or by the records of this case.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the delivery of the instant real estate and the rent or the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent thereto (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap121496) by asserting that the lease contract on the instant real estate concluded with the Defendant had expired, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for simultaneous performance (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap121496). Accordingly, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the said claim and the damages for delay (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap121502).
B. On May 12, 2010, the first instance court dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s claim on the sole basis of the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 15.
Although the Defendant appealed against this and filed an appeal, the appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on May 18, 201 on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiff was named as a senior secretary or a managing director; and (b) the entries in the evidence Nos. 7, 1, 5, 6-1 through 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22 are insufficient to recognize the existence of a claim as alleged by the Defendant on the sole basis of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 12, 16, 19, 22.
[Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na57932 (Main Lawsuit), 57949 (Counterclaim), hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Review").
Since then, the judgment subject to review becomes final and conclusive on June 10, 201, and the defendant filed a petition for review of this case on December 24, 2012.
2. Existence of grounds for retrial
A. Of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim in the judgment subject to a retrial by the defendant is serious evidence, the evidence No. 9-1 and No. 2 (each loan) submitted by the defendant as an independent business operator who is not the plaintiff's employee.