부당이득금반환
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking restitution of unjust enrichment with Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da212251, and on December 14, 2011, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim in full.
B. The Defendant dissatisfied with this and appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2012Na807, and the appellate court changed the first instance judgment on June 19, 2014 and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claims.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da44932, respectively. The Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal on October 30, 2014, respectively, and reversed and remanded the said appellate judgment.
The appellate court rendered a judgment that partly accepted the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the remaining claim by modifying the first instance court's judgment according to the purport of reversal and transmission of the Supreme Court's judgment and the plaintiff's
(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na60155 decided June 26, 2015, hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Central District Court Decision") e.
In response to the above judgment, the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da44229, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal by a judgment of non-judicial failure on October 29, 2015, and the judgment of the Supreme Court on November 3, 2015 became final and conclusive by serving the Defendant on November 3, 2015.
2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial
A. The purport of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant judgment subject to a review is “There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had registered as the owner of each building site owned by the Defendant among the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).” As such, it violates the Seoul District Court’s judgment that there was a registry on the instant land and the instant building on the grounds of the instant decision regarding the disposition by the instant agency, including the Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court Decision 2003Kadan8. Therefore, the instant judgment was contrary to the reasoning of the instant decision.