공유물분할
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Claims and basic facts concerning the grounds of claims;
A. The argument on the cause of the instant claim is as stated in the annexed sheet and the changed cause of the claim.
The argument regarding the main claim is that since the exhibition goods of this case are consistent with the defendant's building and the entire area is owned by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 12,737,200 won out of the price of the above goods (the plaintiff's share) and damages for delay after August 3, 2013, and the plaintiff and the defendant share the exhibition goods of this case in 1/2 shares, and as such, the plaintiff and the defendant share the exhibition goods of this case in 1/2 shares. Since they are consistent with the above, they are owned by the defendant, and the defendant compensates for the co-owned property.
B. Among the above allegations, each of the facts set forth in Attachment 1 to 3. A does not conflict between the parties.
2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense is identical to the case of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, so the lawsuit of this case is deemed unlawful because it conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of this case. However, as pointed out by the plaintiff, the lawsuit of this case is a claim based on ownership of the exhibition goods of this case. The subject matter of this case is a claim based on ownership of the exhibition goods of this case, and the subject matter of this case cannot be deemed the same as a claim based on the purchase price of the goods according to the total contract of this case, and therefore,
3. Judgment as to the main claim
A. First, the defendant asserts that the ownership of the plaintiff on the half of the exhibition goods of this case is valid only for the duration of the contract of this case, and that it is reverted to the defendant after the termination of the contract of this case due to the expiration of the duration of the contract of this case, but there is no sufficient ground to regard it as such, and the above argument
(b) above: