1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2...

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal as to the claim on the merits of the lawsuit (citing the judgment of the court of first instance) are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form), and it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant, based on the ownership of the instant land, filed a claim against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment arising from the transfer of the said land, the removal of each building on the said land, and the possession of the said land as a counterclaim, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the said counterclaim claim conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in

B. (1) The content of the final judgment that became final and conclusive has res judicata effect against the parties and the court, and thus, it is binding not only once the same matter is brought back to the lawsuit but also another court shall not make any judgment contrary to the same, and the claim shall be dismissed in order to make a decision contrary to the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment against the part which is contrary to the final and conclusive judgment against which the losing party has become final

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the delivery of the instant land, the removal of the building on the instant land, and the return of unjust enrichment from the possession of the said land under the court’s 2016Gadan226687, which was decided against the Plaintiff on the ground that the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land has expired, and the Defendant’s appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Na35582, Dec. 14, 1976) and the final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da201030) were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.