beta
Text
1. The plaintiff Gap's successor's claim and the plaintiff's defendant's net appeal are all dismissed.
2. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant on June 19, 2002 (hereinafter "the land of this case") 313.4 square meters in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 19, 2002
2) On November 5, 2007, D purchased the instant building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 23, 2002 (hereinafter “instant building”) and acquired the ownership by winning the building indicated in the attached sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the ground of the instant land.
B. The Defendant’s lawsuit on the instant building and the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment on November 10, 2010 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na11458, 2009Na11465), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”) by asserting that D owned the instant building and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to D’s rent by asserting that D owned the instant land without permission.
(2) On April 14, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D to seek removal of the instant building and delivery of the instant land (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap86162), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
(3) On January 31, 2013, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition against D to prohibit disposal of the instant building by filing a lawsuit against D to seek a specific part of the instant building in relation to E, F, G, H, I, and J, respectively, and the Defendant rendered a final judgment of winning the lawsuit against D on January 31, 2013, on the ground that the instant land transfer and the right to claim removal of the instant building were the right to be preserved (Seoul Southern District Court Order 2013Kahap14). (4) Upon completing the Defendant’s request for eviction and removal of the instant building, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the occupant of the instant building in 2012 and 2013, against E, F, G, I, and J, which possessed a specific part of the instant building, and the Defendant excluded compulsory execution by using each final judgment as an executive title.