건물인도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Examining the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the owner who acquired the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on May 6, 2013, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that he currently occupies the instant building, and there is no counter-proof.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff unless it proves the right to possess the building of this case.
2. The Defendant asserts that there exists a lien on the instant building based on the claim for construction cost.
On the other hand, when a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the court or the party concerned has res judicata effect which is not possible to make a judgment or assertion contrary to the final and conclusive judgment, and the res judicata effect of such final and conclusive judgment shall be based on the time of closing of arguments at the trial court, which is the standard time, and it is not allowed to seek a judgment different from the judgment in a prior suit by asserting the facts
In this case, if Gap evidence No. 2 added the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to seek confirmation of lien on the building of this case as the court 2014Da3236, but was sentenced to a judgment against the plaintiff on October 23, 2014, and it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the lien exists on the building of this case on the grounds prior to the closing of argument in the above judgment is not allowed as a assertion against the res judicata effect of the above judgment.
The defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.