1. The appeal filed by the counterclaim Defendant is dismissed.

2. The counterclaim Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) raised by this Court.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the counterclaim of this case

A. The instant counterclaim by the Counterclaim Plaintiff constitutes a case where a lawsuit identical to the instant principal lawsuit that was withdrawn after the judgment of the first instance was rendered, and thus, is unlawful against the principle of prohibition of re-instigation under Article 267(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The following facts are clear in the records. (A) The purport of the claim of the counterclaim Defendant, which was finally organized in the first instance court, is the same as the purport of the claim of the counterclaim in this case.

그리고 반소피고의 이 사건 본소 청구원인은 반소원고가 반소피고 소유인 여수시 B 답 1,547㎡ 중 별지1. 도면 표시 ㅍ¹, ㅎ², ㄱ³, ㄴ³, ㄷ³, ㄹ³, ㅁ³, ㅂ³, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅎ, ㄱ¹, ㄴ¹, ㄷ¹, ㄹ¹, ㅁ¹, ㅂ¹, ㅅ¹, ㅇ¹, ㅈ¹, ㅊ¹, ㅋ¹, ㅌ¹, ㅍ¹의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ‘나’부분 566㎡를 법률상 원인 없이 점유ㆍ사용하면서 그 부분에 대한 임료 상당의 이익을 얻고 있고, 반소피고는 같은 금액 상당의 손해를 입고 있으므로, 이를 반환해야 한다는 것이었다.

B) On December 8, 2016, the first instance court: (a) accepted the claim of the counterclaim Defendant as above; and (b) rendered a judgment dismissing the counterclaim claim of the counterclaim; (c) on December 28, 2016, the counterclaim Defendant filed a written withdrawal of the lawsuit with the court on June 26, 2017 to the effect that the counterclaim Defendant would withdraw the principal lawsuit of this case; (d) eventually, the principal lawsuit of this case was terminated by the withdrawal of the lawsuit of the counterclaim Defendant; and (e) on September 12, 2017, the counterclaim Defendant filed the second lawsuit of this case identical to the principal lawsuit of this case, the purport of the claim, and the cause of the claim. (2) According to the above recognition, the second lawsuit of this case was withdrawn after the first instance judgment, which was the final judgment rendered by the counterclaim Defendant on the principal lawsuit of this case, and then filed the lawsuit of this case again, Article 267(2) of the Civil Procedure Act prohibiting the second lawsuit of this case.