It includes the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim that was changed in this court.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

As to the legitimacy of the part concerning the counterclaim in the appeal of this case, since the defendant's counterclaim claim was wholly accepted in the first instance court as to the legitimacy of the counterclaim, the part concerning the counterclaim in the appeal of this case is unlawful.

Judgment

In a case where a lawsuit seeking performance against a claim for performance is filed and the purport that the remaining part is reserved and only a claim is not clearly stated, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment shall extend to the remaining part, and thus, it cannot be re-claimed by a separate lawsuit as to the remaining part. Thus, the obligee who won the whole part of the claim is not allowed to file an appeal to expand the remaining part of the claim, and the obligee who won the whole part of the claim shall be disadvantaged by losing the opportunity to bring an action against the remaining part of the claim. Accordingly,

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276 delivered on October 24, 1997, etc.). Since the Defendant did not clearly state that part of the claim was made while claiming a monetary payment as a counterclaim in the first instance trial, the Defendant may file an appeal to expand the claim even if the Defendant’s counterclaim was fully accepted in the first instance trial.

Therefore, the part concerning the counterclaim among the appeal of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's defense is not justified.

Basic Facts

(1) On December 20, 2002, the Plaintiff is a person who acquired the ownership of 357 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and a house on its ground (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s housing”) adjacent to the said land. The Defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to C, 344 square meters (the area was 362 square meters at the time of filing the instant lawsuit, and the land was divided into 18 square meters among them on January 17, 2018, and the land was divided into 344 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s land.