건물명도(인도)
1. The Plaintiff’s part of the lawsuit against Defendant B, against which the Plaintiff’s explanation of the building and the claim for unjust enrichment is dismissed.
2...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On April 9, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to Defendant B during the period from April 15, 2017 to April 14, 2018, with a rental deposit of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 800,000 (excluding value-added tax), and period from April 15, 2017 to April 14, 2018.
C. On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B with Seoul Western District Court No. 2017Kadan17569, and sentenced Defendant B to the above court’s judgment that “Defendant B delivers the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and paid the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 80,000 per month from June 15, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant final judgment”) d.
The Defendants jointly occupied the instant real estate, and paid 9,680,000 in arrears until June 14, 2019, and 2,739,400 in arrears management expenses until May 31, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff and the defendant B: The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-8, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments between the plaintiff and the defendant C: The confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s among the lawsuits against Defendant B, the part claiming for a false building name map and unjust enrichment by ex officio determination as to whether the part claiming unjust enrichment against Defendant B is lawful or not.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party in a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, where the party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a lawsuit against the other party in the previous judgment, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. Provided, That in exceptional cases where the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired,
The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is serious.