1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 밀양시 D 답 4,032㎡의 소유자로 피고가 아무런 권원 없이 위 부동산 중 89평인 이 사건 부동산에 대하여 2015. 5. 20. 도로로 편입하여 피고가 사실상 지배하에 점유ㆍ 관리하고 있으므로 2015. 5.경부터 이 사건 부동산에 대하여 피고의 점유 종료일 또는 원고의 소유권 상실일까지 월 600,000원의 비율에 의한 부당이득금과 피고가 이 사건 부동산에 대하여 미지급한 보상금 등 27,168,740원[= 추가 보상금 18,382,500원 영농비 1,546,240원 지장물(대추나무) 1,050,000원 지장물(구찌뽕나무) 2,100,000원 도로보호망 설치비용 4,090,000원]을 지급할 의무가 있다.

B. The defendant's claim in this case is in conflict with the res judicata of the judgment against the judgment against which the plaintiff was affirmed in the previous claim for compensation which was brought before.

2. Determination

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment on a claim other than the cost of installing road protection networks affects the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, the filing of a subsequent suit between the same parties is not permissible because it conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.

In addition, in a subsequent suit as to the same subject matter of lawsuit, seeking a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the means of offence and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the prior suit is contrary to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit, and is not asked whether the parties were negligent in not knowing the said means of offence and defense in the prior suit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981 Decided March 27, 2014). If a judgment of losing a lawsuit against the same subject matter becomes final and conclusive, a judgment inconsistent with the latter cannot be rendered.