logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2010.11.25 2009나59604 (2)
지료
Text

1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and all of the plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants corresponding to the revoked part.

Reasons

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the instant case is the case where: (a) the Plaintiffs purchased the share of co-ownership of the instant land in the auction procedure to exercise a security right, as a co-owner of an aggregate building, with respect to the Defendants, who are co-ownership holders of the instant land, as co-ownership holders of an aggregate building, obtained benefits without any legal cause by exclusively occupying, exclusively occupying, and using the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership as co-ownership owners of an aggregate building; and (b) thereby, the Plaintiffs claim a return of unjust enrichment equivalent

The judgment of the first instance accepted all the plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal to expand their claims, and the defendants appealed (defendant 1 to 24) and incidental appeal (defendant 25 to 33).

[The appeal by the party who won the entire winning judgment is not allowed as there is no benefit from the appeal, barring any special circumstance. However, as in the case of a partial claim that does not specify that part of the claim is a separate claim, if there are special circumstances that are likely to cause loss of an opportunity to file a separate claim more favorable than the judgment by being unable to file a separate lawsuit pursuant to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, such as the case of a partial claim that does not specify that part of the claim is a separate claim, the benefit of appeal may be recognized to extend the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37904, Jun. 15, 2007, 2004; 2004Da37911, Jan. 1, 2001). The Plaintiffs sought against the Defendants the payment of the usage fee for the portion insufficient to own the building out of the share in the site, while the Defendants owned and used the entire share in the site owned by the Plaintiffs

【Evidence of Facts】 A, A2, A3,.

arrow