부당이득금
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
1. Paragraph (1) shall apply to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is admitted by the court.
[However, “The part” as stated in Article 1-h (h) of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased and the plaintiff are not distinguished and refers to only the plaintiff) is excluded. Accordingly, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion filed a lawsuit against the Pakistan-si seeking compensation for damages, and received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 1, 2008 to April 22, 2014, ordering the Plaintiff to pay damages equivalent to the rent of each of the instant land from the court for the case of Pakistan-si.
Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the phrase “ October 31, 2010,” written in the Defendant’s written brief submitted on October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010, appears to be the clerical error in the phrase “ December 31, 2010,” respectively.
The portion seeking unjust enrichment equivalent to rent is unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.
B. According to the purport of the evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming payment of damages (i.e., the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of damages (i., the above lawsuit was transferred to the court 2014Ga50012, Jan. 2, 2014 following the extension of the purport of the claim) by asserting that each of the instant land in this case was damaged due to the illegal decision of urban planning facilities in the so-called “school site” in the so-called “relevant civil lawsuit”) on October 1, 2013, by asserting that the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the illegal decision of urban planning facilities in the so-called market that determines the land as a school site.
However, the pertinent civil suit brought by the Plaintiff against the Pakistan-si on October 1, 2013 is a claim for damages on the ground of an unlawful determination of urban planning facilities, and the lawsuit of this case seeking the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of an unlawful possession of each land of this case differs from the lawsuit of this case.
Therefore, it is based on the premise that part of the lawsuit in this case constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.