1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(1) On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D seeking the removal of the instant building and delivery of the disputing land, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff owned the instant land (the Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the instant land, which was part of the building’s reinforced concrete structure, the slab roof, the five-story neighborhood living facilities, and the apartment building on the instant land); and (b) the Defendant constructed the instant building on the land in dispute without permission; and (c) D without permission occupied and used the instant building as the president of the Escopypty before the Escopypty; and (d) the Defendant and D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D seeking the removal of the instant building and delivery of the surrounding land.

D. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant and D on April 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant prior suit”). The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff appealed but the Plaintiff failed to comply with the order to provide the security for the costs of lawsuit (Seoul District Court 2016Na4193), and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court 2016Da255279).

[Reasons for Recognition] 5, 6, and 7 Evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Despite the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land is owned by himself, the Defendant constructed the instant building on the land in dispute without permission. Thus, the Defendant must remove the instant building and deliver the disputing land.

B. The filing of a subsequent suit against the same subject matter of a prior suit between the parties to the same judgment is not permissible as it goes against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit. The existence of res judicata effect should be examined ex officio by the court regardless of whether the parties have asserted it

The Plaintiff filed the instant prior suit seeking to remove the instant building and transfer the disputed land against the Defendant identical to the cause of the claim in the instant case.