beta
Text
The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
As to this case, our court's explanation is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which is obtained by deducting the following contents from adding them to the following Paragraph 2, thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The Defendants asserted the right of retention in the trial against the non-party company that the claim for construction price against the non-party company exists, but the right of retention is a requirement for possession of real estate. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants possessed the real estate in this case even before the Defendants, including the statements in the evidence Nos. 8 through 12, No. 13-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 13-2, there is no other evidence, and there is no other evidence). The summary of the argument regarding res judicata in the final judgment is that the Defendants asserted that the final judgment is valid in this case.
Judgment
On the other hand, a final and conclusive judgment pursuant to Article 216(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall have res judicata effect only for those contained in the text, and the contents contained in the reasoning of the judgment shall not have res judicata effect. A final and conclusive judgment pursuant to Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall have effect only on the parties to the judgment, successors subsequent to closure of pleadings, or persons possessing the object of the
First of all, the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2000Kadan11693 was not only related to the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party B as a lawsuit filed by H against F, I, and I, but also sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the land located in JJ at the early of the early of the early of the year, and the content of the claim for the construction price against the non-party company is not entirely shown in the reasoning of the judgment.
Next, Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Kahap150 decided 201.