beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was 340 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun B, 6,270 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun C, 560 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun D, 560 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, and 3,399 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun E., the Plaintiff’s father. The above land was incorporated into the river area in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land incorporated into the State (hereinafter “Special Measures”) by changing the land category, dividing, or converting the area. The Defendant is obligated to pay compensation to the Plaintiff, who is the deceased F’s inheritor, in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land incorporated into the River (hereinafter “Special Measures”).
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. Since the contents of the Defendant’s principal safety defense had already been filed before the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for losses against the Defendant regarding each of the instant land and received a final judgment in favor of the Defendant, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata of the said final judgment
B. In light of the overall purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant that "The land of this case is the land under the circumstances of the deceased F, his father, and since it was part of the river area as a state-owned land, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff, who is the deceased F, to pay compensation for losses of 538,373,700 won for incorporation of each of the land of this case into the river in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Residents, and the above court rendered a ruling accepting all the plaintiff's claims on June 2, 201, and the above judgment can be acknowledged as finalized on June 24, 201.
According to the above facts, the subject matter of this case is identical to the subject matter of this judgment.
As such, the lawsuit of this case is above.