1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion of the overall defenses of Chapters 17 through 19 (the following subparagraphs) of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the judgment of the court is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary decision-making] The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the part recognized as Defendant’s possession and used in the final judgment of the previous suit of this case are inconsistent with that of the Defendant’s possession and used in the instant case, res judicata of the said final judgment cannot be deemed to affect this case.

However, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, that is, it only affects the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations claimed as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations, which are the premise of the judgment.

As can be seen from the facts revealed by the court of first instance, the subject matter of the final judgment of this case is the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the Defendant to occupy and use part of the G’s land owned by J as the site for the instant communications relay station. If the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is limited to the lawsuit of this case, the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is also divided into four lots, including the above G land B-2,277 square meters, C Forest land 2,152 square meters, D forest land 4,612 square meters, E forest land 19,905 square meters, and the Defendant still has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the Defendant to occupy and use it as the site for the communications relay station of this case. Furthermore, the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is identical to the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the land for the communications relay station of this case recognized to be occupied by the Defendant from the above final judgment was located in the same G-party land.