1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for unjust enrichment with the Suwon District Court 2003Kadan17978, Suwon District Court, as the owner of Suwon-si C& 237 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On October 24, 2005, the said court rendered a decision in lieu of the conciliation that “the Defendant shall pay to B money at the rate of KRW 73,766 per month from November 1, 2005 and from November 1, 2005 to the time when he loses ownership of the instant land or the Defendant’s possession is terminated.”

(hereinafter referred to as “final and conclusive judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff was transferred on November 28, 2008 the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land.

C. The Defendant completed payment with the usage fee of the instant land for the period of 2013 pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8, 11, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of the rent cited in the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit is not reasonable in light of the various circumstances thereafter, and thus, the Plaintiff sought money equivalent to the purport of the claim as a return of unjust enrichment.

Although the contents of the Plaintiff’s claim are unclear, it is intended to interpret the land of this case to seek unjust enrichment equivalent to future rent after the date of filing the lawsuit.

B. Subsequent to a final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of periodic payments, when a special circumstance occurs which greatly infringes on the equity between the parties, as the situations forming the basis for computing the amount were significantly changed, the parties to such judgment may institute a lawsuit claiming to change the amount of periodic payments to be paid in the future.

(Article 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, in this case, the land of this case is being used as a road at the time of closing of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit and at the time of closing of pleadings in the instant lawsuit, and accordingly, the Defendant occupies it.