2. The Defendants are the Plaintiff.

A. From June 30, 1965, the Plaintiff owned 2370 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant D is the owner of F forest land, the neighboring land, and Defendant C is the owner of G large scale 393 square meters (hereinafter “real estate location”) located within the adjoining land.

B. The Defendants owned a warehouse building (hereinafter “the instant building”) on G and F land around October 198. The said building is located in a dispute over the land of “1 square meter in part” (hereinafter “the instant building”) connected in order to each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, and 1, among the instant land. The said building is located in a dispute over “1 square meter in part” and “1 square meter in part” (hereinafter “the instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements or images, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser H, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for delivery of land and the claim for unjust enrichment in the lawsuit of this case asserts that since the judgment of Daejeon District Court 2009Kadan109999 was final and conclusive to deliver the disputed land to the Plaintiff, the part that the Plaintiff again seeks delivery of the disputing land by the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in violation of res judicata.

Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, filing a subsequent suit between the same parties regarding the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da4981 Decided March 27, 2014). In full view of the purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser H’s survey and appraisal, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) removal of ditches and stone embankments installed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants on the instant land; (b) delivery of the instant building and the relevant site; and (c) possession of the relevant site portion.