The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2018Gahap59352 seeking the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants.

On May 8, 2019, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff appealed (Seoul High Court 2019Na2023990), and the above court rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on September 19, 2019 (the subject case of review).

The judgment subject to a retrial was finalized on October 5, 2019.

B. On October 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the judgment of the first instance (before transfer) with the Seoul Central District Court 2019 Jaehap84, which sought the revocation of the judgment of the first instance (the instant case).

(2) On May 11, 2015, the provisional registration of the right to claim partial transfer of shares in the name D (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) acquired by the Plaintiff on October 31, 2019, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision of transfer on October 31, 2019 on the ground that the said case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court. 2. The provisional registration of this case (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) cannot be deemed to have been extinguished by the above auction procedure because the Plaintiff did not claim the right, such as demand distribution, etc. by the creditor of the Seoul Central District Court at the time of voluntary auction procedure (the prior auction procedure).

Inasmuch as the provisional registration of this case was made with F, the owner of 1/2 share in the land of this case, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive dividends in preference to the creditors against the Defendants, the owner of which was at the Seoul Central District Court H auction procedure (after the auction procedure), which was commenced following Defendant C’s filing an application for auction for partition of co-owned property on the land of this case.

Although the Plaintiff asserted as above in the instant case subject to review, it was omitted in the judgment subject to review.