The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is the owner of six heading rooms among Tdong, which is part of a Yystal wells located in the Namyang-si, X-si (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building"), and seven heading rooms (including above 13 heading rooms and hereinafter referred to as the "heading rooms of this case").

Although the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking the payment of the construction cost, the claim against the Plaintiff was dismissed, and on October 24, 2011, the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2010Na34373), the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of Q-ho and R-ho of the instant building to the Defendant on October 24, 201, and the Defendant formed a compromise between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to waive or cancel the lien on the instant building and deliver the said building to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “conciliation in this case”).

In addition, on February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the family room under the terms of the settlement in this case to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff and C filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages equivalent to rent, etc., by asserting that the Plaintiff still occupies each subparagraph of this case, etc. even though the Plaintiff fulfilled his/her duty of settlement of this case, as the Jung-gu District Court 2013Kahap1396, which made the Plaintiff the designated party.

In addition, on June 11, 2014, the above court rendered a judgment of the first instance that all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the defendant occupied directly or indirectly each of the subparagraphs of this case, and that the plaintiff was rendered a judgment of dismissal on the ground that the defendant was found guilty of a criminal charge of fraud.

The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance as Seoul High Court No. 2014Na33521, and subsequently expanded and added the purport of the claim, but the said judgment rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss both the Plaintiff’s appeal, extension and additional claims on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the first instance on December 8, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not file an appeal.