건물명도(인도)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of cutting, adding, or deleting as follows.
2. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts should be added to the part used or added and deleted, and on the 16th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts should be added to the evidence Nos. 8 and No. 9-1 through 5.
Pursuant to the purport of the judgment of the first instance on February 28, 2019, “O Plaintiff is an amount calculated by deducting KRW 34,460,016 from the remaining lease deposit KRW 25,539,984,60,000, the deposit money for lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000, the amount that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff by deducting KRW 34,460,016. While the Defendant intended to pay to the Defendant, the Defendant refused to receive the deposit, and the Defendant deposited the deposited money with the Defendant on the ground of refusal to receive the deposit at the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch branch office of this case, but the Plaintiff did not deliver it to the Plaintiff.”
The part of the judgment of the first instance court, i.e., "the defendant, through the content certification (Evidence No. 3) of April 11, 2018, answers to the plaintiff to the effect that "if the defendant receives premium from the new lessee after drilling, C would pay the overdue rent of KRW 20 million up to June 22, 2018 according to the terms of the contract" (No. 4-8) is as follows.
“The protocol of a prior settlement has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and thus res judicata takes effect between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da44014, Dec. 6, 2002). As such, res judicata does not extend to any third party other than the parties, except as otherwise provided by law.