beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land of 2,936 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in 1/3 shares of each of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Of these, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming partition of co-owned property (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”) against the Defendants, who are co-owners of the instant land, as co-owners of the instant land, as indicated in the court No. 2014Gadan8325 (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”) on July 17, 2014, and the said court rendered a final judgment that: (a) the portion of the land (A) connected each point of 1,22, 366 m2 in the attached Form No. 1,2, 36, and 178.67 m2 in the ship connected each point of 1,957 m2 in order of the same drawings; and (b) the judgment became final and conclusive by dividing the part (a) 1,957 m23 m2 in each of the Defendants’ shares.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff cannot divide the land in accordance with the purport of the previous litigation under Article 22 of the Farmland Act, which shall be divided into more than 2,000 square meters of each parcel after the division of the land in order to divide the land in this case after the previous litigation. As to the lawsuit of this case seeking the division of the jointly owned property, the defendants asserted that it is unlawful since there was a final judgment, such as the previous lawsuit related to the land in this case, inasmuch as there was a final judgment related to the previous one.
In light of the above, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party to a lawsuit claiming partition of co-owned property has res judicata effect and executory power, there is no benefit to bring an identical lawsuit, barring special circumstances, such as where the original final and conclusive judgment is destroyed or cannot receive an execution clause necessary for compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1888, Mar. 24, 1981), barring any special circumstance, barring any benefit to bring an action (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1888, Mar.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .