1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion added by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. Determination on the Additional Claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the counterclaim of this case is against res judicata is unlawful in light of the principle of res judicata, since the defendant's counterclaim of this case is contrary to res judicata, there is no benefit of protection of rights, or the plaintiff's assertion itself is not justified.

The assertion that “......” is alleged to the effect that “...........”

The contents of the instant conciliation are as follows: “The Plaintiff confirmed that the ownership of the land in the dispute in this case was against the Defendants, and did not claim all ownership of the said land.” The content of the instant counterclaim claim is to seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the removal of the land and the removal of crops, delivery of land, and rent as the owner of the land in the dispute in this case.

As can be seen, the relationship of rights and duties established in the instant conciliation and the relation of rights and duties that the Defendants sought as the counterclaim is not identical, and the counterclaim claim in this case seeks the exclusion of interference based on the Defendants’ ownership on the land in dispute, which became final and conclusive in the instant conciliation, and rather accords with the content of the instant conciliation.

Therefore, since the counterclaim claim of this case conflicts with res judicata of the conciliation of this case, it cannot be said that there is no benefit of protection of rights or that there is no reason to assert itself.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the assertion of invalidation due to an expression of intention, not a truth, is that “this case’s conciliation constitutes a true declaration of intention, not a truth, and thus, the Defendants knew or could have known that it is not a true intention, and thus is null and void under the proviso of Article 107(1)