beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff shall be reversed.
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and objection.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The existence of a final and conclusive judgment ought to be examined and determined by the court ex officio, even if the parties did not assert the existence of the final and conclusive judgment by the time the arguments are concluded in the final and conclusive trial, a new assertion and
(1) In cases where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu1308, Oct. 10, 1989; 2009Da94384, 94391, 94407, May 13, 2011). Furthermore, in cases where the party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit again, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006; 2016Da13482, Sept.
The Plaintiff is a person subject to the relocation measures who lost his base of living due to the implementation of the instant project, and the Defendant (the name was changed from EP to the Seoul Housing Urban Corporation) (the name was changed from EP to the Seoul Housing Urban Corporation) as the executor of the instant project, as part of the relocation measures, supplied the Plaintiff with an apartment to be developed within the land subject to the instant project (hereinafter “instant apartment
Accordingly, on June 25, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to sell 721 202 m2 (91.3m2,000,000 of the apartment of this case) among the apartment of this case, and paid in full.
B. B. Before filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, the Plaintiff included the cost of installing basic living facilities to be borne by the Defendant under Article 78(4) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007) in the sale price, so the said sale contract is part of the sales contract.