The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case constitutes a lawsuit which overlaps with the lawsuit in Jeonju District Court 2017Ja group 18 case filed by the plaintiff, and thus, it is unlawful.

However, Jeonju District Court 2017Kadan18 case is seeking a new trial against the judgment of the Jeonju District Court 2014Kadan25957 case where the plaintiff claimed to the defendant for the removal of the building of this case, the delivery of the land, and the return of unjust enrichment caused by the possession and use of the land.

On the other hand, the instant lawsuit sought restitution of unjust enrichment on the grounds of the delivery, removal, and occupation and use of the building of this case.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is not identical to the lawsuit of Jeonju District Court 2017Jadan18 case, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The land which is the site of the instant building (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff. Since the instant building on the ground is not owned by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, leave the instant building, and pay the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the possession and use of the building.

Judgment

The Plaintiff, as a co-owner of the instant land (No. 3), may file a claim against the owner of the instant building for the return of unjust enrichment due to the delivery of the instant land, the removal of the instant building, and the possession and use of the instant land, but may not file a claim for the return of unjust enrichment due to the delivery of the instant building or the possession and use of the instant building based on the ownership of the said land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building and the claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be accepted.

If the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment is based on possession and use of land, the judgment of the former District Court 2015Na5531 has res judicata effect.

Therefore, in the above final judgment, the plaintiff won the award.