beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “D” of the second instance judgment as “E”, and it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “the following additional determination” as to the main defense added by the defendant to this court, and therefore, it is to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s main defense ground Plaintiff, through the instant lawsuit, sought a return of unjust enrichment as to the damages for which the Plaintiff did not use a considerable amount of his share among the instant land, due to the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land by the 140 square meters in a fluoral wall, brick string roof warehouse, 56 square meters in a block string roof, and 60 square meters in a block string roof warehouse (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on the ground, which was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, (hereinafter “instant land”).
However, the defendant is the right holder of the land of this case, but is not the owner of the building of this case, and there is no standing to be a party to the lawsuit of this case, and the plaintiff should have filed the lawsuit against E, who is the owner of the
B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as a person holding the standing to sue and who has asserted as a person holding the standing to sue from him/her as a person holding the standing to sue, and the plaintiff's assertion itself does not require that the plaintiff and the defendant are either the person holding the standing to sue or the person performing the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da1676, Aug. 23, 197; 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). In the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff claims return of unjust enrichment to the defendant, the above reasons alleged by the defendant are merely the subject of determination as to the existence of the right to sue within the merits, and it is not the grounds to be determined as the party's standing prior to the merits, but also a majority.