beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B expanded in the trial.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 476 square meters of Busan Northern-gu D road.
B. The instant land, which is a part of the said land, consists of the part indicated in the attached Form 2, 9 square meters, 6 square meters in the part indicated in the attached Form 2, 34 square meters in the same drawing with toilets installed, and 49 square meters in the aggregate of 34 square meters in the attached Form 4 (hereinafter “part of the instant land”) and 86 square meters in the part indicated in the attached Form 5 (hereinafter “the part of the instant land”), which is an open space, and the block fence, fence, etc. are installed on the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-7, Gap evidence 5-2 to 5, Gap evidence 6-10, the purport of the whole images and arguments
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants had already filed a lawsuit against the Defendants to claim the transfer of the instant land by Busan District Court Decision 2015Kadan28810, and filed a claim identical to the cause of the instant lawsuit, and requested the delivery of the instant land portion and the payment of land usage fees. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.
B. 1) In order to deem the instant lawsuit to be unlawful as it violates the principle prohibiting double filing, the instant lawsuit should be filed first prior to the instant lawsuit and pending in the court with the same content as the relevant parties and the relevant parties. 2) According to the written evidence Nos. 5 and 6, prior to the instant lawsuit, prior to the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking removal of obstacles to the instant land and delivery of 111m2 out of the instant land by Busan District Court 2015Kadan28810.
However, the subject matter of the lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case against the defendants for the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of illegal possession are not identical. Thus, the prior defense of the defendants is without merit.