beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Of the 2,160/2,474 square meters of C river (hereinafter “the instant river”), the Plaintiff owned shares of 314/2,474 square meters, and the Defendant owned shares of 81/109 square meters of D bank 109 square meters (hereinafter “the instant bank”), and the Plaintiff owned shares of 28/109 square meters of D bank 109 square meters, respectively.
B. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking partition of co-owned property against the instant river and bank as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da135185. On April 4, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment on the following: “The part of the ship portion connecting each of the points in the attached table 5 through 18, 17, and 1 of the instant river is owned by the Plaintiff; the part of the ship portion connecting each point in the attached table 1 through 4, 18, 17, and 1 of the same drawings is divided as owned by the Defendant; at the same time, the Defendant received KRW 2,402,400 from the Plaintiff, paid KRW 28/109 out of the instant bank, and at the same time, the Plaintiff implemented the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the share of 28/109 of the instant bank, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,402,400,000, and the remainder of litigation costs to the Plaintiff is determined by the lower judgment 2017.”
(hereinafter referred to as “pre-trial action”). (c)
On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs as to KRW 2,496,50 of the litigation costs required in the preceding lawsuit, and received a decision to confirm that the amount of litigation costs that the Defendant is KRW 873,775, according to the judgment of the preceding lawsuit, and the Defendant deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in accordance with the said decision with the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 707, 2018, KRW 873,775.
【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.