beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Plaintiff for retrial).
Reasons
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.
The Plaintiff, A, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of unjust enrichment by asserting that the Defendant occupied and used each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) on the Plaintiff, etc.’s joint ownership as a road without any legal cause under the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Kadan10799, the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of unjust enrichment by claiming that the Plaintiff, etc. gain profit equivalent to the rent and suffered damage equivalent to the same amount. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. for the payment of unjust enrichment with the intent of holding the Plaintiff, etc. under the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Kadan20199, the period of extinctive prescription for possession has expired by openly occupying each of the instant lands for 20 years, and that the Plaintiff, etc.’s share in each of the instant lands had been completed on December 26, 1993.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff et al. appealed to Daegu District Court No. 2014Na30753 (main office) and 2014Na30760 (Counterclaim), but the said court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that all appeals filed by the Plaintiff et al. were dismissed on July 16, 2014, and the Plaintiff et al. received a certified copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on July 17, 2014.
C. The Plaintiff, etc., other than D, appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da222428 (principal lawsuit) and 2014Da222435 (Counterclaim), but the final appeal was dismissed by a judgment of non-trial trial on December 11, 2014, and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff, etc. except D on December 12, 2014, and the Defendant on December 15, 2014, respectively, and the judgment subject to final judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2014.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the judgment is subject to a retrial.