1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The New Daily Architectural et al. (hereinafter referred to as the “New Architectural Architectural et al.”) established an outdoor advertising tower indicated in the indication of the annexed advertising tower (hereinafter referred to as the “instant advertising tower”) with permission from the head of Busan Jin-jin, and acquired its ownership.

B. On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff established C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as “C”) for the purpose of outdoor advertisement production and installation business, etc., and C purchased the instant advertising tower from the New Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Co., Ltd. on April 2, 2004 and transferred its ownership.

C. The Plaintiff transferred C on August 17, 2006 to D, and D changed C’s trade name to E (hereinafter “E”) on August 18, 2006.

E on February 28, 2011, transferred the instant advertising tower to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. against E, D, the Defendant, and Busan High-gu Busan High-gu (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the market price of the advertising tower since the Defendant, etc. sold the instant advertising tower owned by the Plaintiff in succession to order and caused damage to the Plaintiff, etc. to lose its ownership. On June 17, 2014, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff acquired the said advertising tower from C on March 16, 206, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers if there are above numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it conflicts with the res judicata of the judgment related to this case and thus, it should be dismissed.

However, the subject matter of the judgment of this case is limited to tort.