1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Appointeds) and the designated parties are dismissed;

2. The appeal costs.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in 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 decision of the court of first instance are justified 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 as follows, except where the judgment of this court is added to the allegations added by the Defendants in this court, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of this court.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff filed a extradition suit against the Defendants with the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2016Kadan6329 (Seoul District Court Decision 2017 or 30702, which was the appellate court, and rendered a favorable judgment; and (b) the said judgment became final and conclusive.

The execution of delivery of real estate was carried out on May 2, 2017 by the first instance judgment of the relevant case, but it was impossible to execute it due to the lack of the parcel number and the owner of the building.

Therefore, since the res judicata has occurred with respect to the real estate that was ordered to deliver in the preceding judgment, the lawsuit of this case goes against the res judicata effect of the preceding judgment.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Eul evidence Nos. 57 and 58 and facts in this court, all of the above prior judgments and the lawsuits in this case asserted by the defendants are sought to deliver obstacles or buildings based on ownership, and the plaintiff's claim is filed based on the plaintiff's ownership, but it is obvious that the subject of claim is not identical (the plaintiff amended the purport of the claim in the appellate court in the above prior case, and the real estate for which the plaintiff sought to deliver the defendants against the defendants in this case is excluded from the subject of delivery), and the subject of the lawsuit in this case is entirely different.

Therefore, the above preceding judgment is affirmed.