Whether it is legitimate for a person who acquired the ownership of land after the closing of argument in a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment against the former owner against the latter owner without permission to file a lawsuit seeking alteration against the final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit above (negative)

Article 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In a case where any special circumstance occurs that greatly infringes on equity between the parties as a situation forming the basis of computing the amount was significantly changed subsequent to a final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of periodic funds, the parties to such judgment may file a lawsuit claiming a change in the amount of periodic funds to be paid in the future.” The purpose of a lawsuit seeking a change in the final and conclusive judgment is to exceptionally exclude res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the ground of significant change in circumstances that occurred after the final and conclusive judgment of periodic funds became final and conclusive. As such, a lawsuit seeking a change in the final and conclusive judgment may be brought against the parties to a final and conclusive judgment or only the third party whose res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment under Article 2

Meanwhile, in a case where a land owner filed a lawsuit seeking a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amount against an illegal occupant based on the ownership of the land and the judgment that the illegal occupant returned the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amount each month until the delivery of the land occupied, the subject matter of the lawsuit is the obligatory claim, and thus, the subject matter of the lawsuit is the obligatory claim, and thus, the person who acquired the ownership of the land after the closing of the lawsuit cannot be deemed to fall under the successor following the closure of pleadings in which the res judicata effect of the final

Therefore, since the res judicata effect of final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of the fixed amount of money issued in a lawsuit against a person who acquired the ownership of the land after the closing of argument in a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment filed by the former owner does not bring a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment again against a person occupying the land without permission, and filing a lawsuit claiming alteration against the final and conclusive judgment rendered in a lawsuit claiming restitution

Articles 218(1) and 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

KT Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys Park Mine-cheon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2013Na919 decided April 17, 2014

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Article 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In a case where a special circumstance occurs which greatly infringes on equity between the parties as the circumstances forming the basis for computing the amount were significantly changed subsequent to a final judgment ordering payment of periodic payments, the parties to the judgment may file a lawsuit claiming a change in the amount of periodic payments to be paid in the future.” The purpose of a lawsuit seeking a change in the judgment of periodic payments is to exceptionally exclude res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on the ground of a significant change in circumstances that occurred after the final and conclusive judgment of periodic payments became final and conclusive. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that only the parties to the final and conclusive judgment or a third party whose res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment pursuant to Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act can file a lawsuit

Meanwhile, in a case where a land owner filed a lawsuit seeking a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amount against an illegal occupant of the land based on the ownership and the judgment that the illegal occupant returned the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amount each month until the delivery of the land in possession becomes final, the subject matter of such lawsuit is the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amount, which is the obligatory right, and thus, the person who acquired the ownership of the land after the closing of argument in the lawsuit cannot be deemed to fall under the successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings in which res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment takes effect pursuant to Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da2

Therefore, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment ordering payment of the fixed amount of money issued in the above lawsuit against a person who acquired the ownership of the land after the closing of argument in the lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment filed by the former owner does not bring a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment again against a possessor of the land without permission, and filing a lawsuit claiming alteration against the final and conclusive judgment rendered in the lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment filed by the former

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking a change of the fixed amount as stipulated in the final and conclusive judgment of the instant previous suit on the grounds that, after the final and conclusive judgment of the instant previous suit ordering the Defendant to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent of a certain amount, there is a significant change in the circumstances that form the basis for the calculation of rent for the land possessed and used by the Defendant, and that, thereby, maintaining the said final and conclusive judgment would not significantly infringe the equity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

3. However, according to the records, the non-party, who is the former owner of the Dong-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted), filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking return of unjust enrichment on the ground that he occupied and used the above forest without permission, and that "the defendant shall pay to the non-party the amount equivalent to the rate of KRW 605,250 per month from September 22, 2003 to the completion date of delivery of the part possessed by the defendant out of the land ( Address 1 omitted) of Daejeon Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the res judicata effect does not extend to the Plaintiff who acquired ownership of forest land in the above four parcels after the final judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff is not entitled to institute a lawsuit seeking modification of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit of this case which ordered the payment of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit of this case. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking modification of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit of this case is instituted by a person without standing to sue.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this case is sufficient to directly judge this case, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)