1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following items, following the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff asserts that since the Seoul Central District Court trusted the delivery/determination (Evidence A4) of July 29, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court that the judgment of the previous suit against the defendant A and B became final and conclusive on July 15, 2004, the plaintiff could not transfer to the plaintiff disadvantage caused by the above burden of proof issued by the court's error.

In full view of the above facts, Gap evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole arguments, the judgment of the court below against △△△ and Eul was finalized on July 18, 2003 and confirmed on July 15, 2004. The Seoul Central District Court issued the plaintiff on July 29, 2010 the original copy of the judgment on the case such as "I prove that I will have been confirmed as of July 15, 2004 that I will have been confirmed as of July 15, 2004." The Seoul Central District Court issued to the plaintiff on July 29, 2010 the documents such as the Seoul Central District Court 200hap62789 Claims, etc., Seoul High Court 2003Na53178 Claims, etc., Seoul High Court 2003Na21244 Claims, etc., and the original copy of the judgment was already delivered to the defendants."

Since Defendant A and B did not appeal against the judgment in a prior suit, the phrase “ July 15, 2004,” which was recorded in the above certification body, indicates the date on which the judgment in a prior suit against the Defendant Daelim Planning became final and conclusive by filing an appeal and a final appeal.

As alleged by the plaintiff, if the above proved source caused the misunderstanding that the judgment in a prior suit against the defendant A and B became final and conclusive on July 15, 2004, it would only be an issue whether the State is liable for damages due to the negligence of the State, and such misunderstanding cannot be said to change the starting point of the statute of limitations to July 15, 2004, so the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.