1. Of the size of 503 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si H 503 square meters in relation to the Plaintiff’s Defendant C, each point is indicated in the attached Form No. 15, 16, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15.

1. The plaintiff asserts that, among the land in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") of Pyeongtaek-si H 503 square meters with respect to Defendant C, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the removal of the part of the building part of the building part of the building part of the wall 15 square meters on the ground inside the ship connected each point of 15, 16, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15, which was attached to the annexed drawing indicating 15, 16, 10, 10, 12, 13, and 15, the land in this case is the right holder of the land in this case. Since the building in this case owned by the defendant C is against the land in this case, the plaintiff

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party of the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 5-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 5-2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the same content as the cause of the instant claim in Suwon District Court Decision 201Ga21339, Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gadan8696, Suwon District Court Decision 2015 decided that “Defendant C shall remove the instant building portion to the Plaintiff,” and that the judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful because the party against whom the judgment of winning the lawsuit was rendered makes the same claim against the other party of the previous suit as the previous suit in which the judgment of winning the lawsuit is rendered.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed.

2. As to the claim against Defendant B, the part of the instant building owned by Defendant B, in which the Plaintiff owned co-ownership, is affected by the instant land. The instant land is located on the instant land by the Defendant B, which is located on the 27m wide, 9m wide, 3m high, and 2.1m container (hereinafter “instant container”) that connects each point of the 21, 22, 23, 24, and 21m wide, indicated in the attached drawings owned by Defendant B, in sequence.