[2] The case holding that where the disability portion of the plaintiff's assertion was not a part different from the disability portion claimed in the previous lawsuit, but the result of partial appraisal was found to have been a permanent disability as alleged in the plaintiff's assertion in the previous lawsuit, since it cannot be said that the damage caused by the plaintiff's assertion was more severe than that of the time at which the previous lawsuit was brought, it cannot be viewed as a new damage that does not have the effect of the decision in lieu of conciliation which became final and conclusive in the previous lawsuit

[2] The case holding that where the disability portion of the plaintiff's assertion was not a part different from the disability portion claimed in the previous lawsuit, but the result of partial appraisal was found to have been a permanent disability as alleged in the plaintiff's assertion in the previous lawsuit, it cannot be said that it cannot be said that the damage caused by the plaintiff's assertion was a case where it was clearly obvious that the damage caused by the plaintiff's assertion was significantly serious as at the time of the previous lawsuit, and it cannot be viewed as a new damage that does not have the effect of the decision that substituted for conciliation which

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party continued to operate an insured vehicle (vehicle registration number 1 omitted) on March 1, 1992, which is the defendant's vehicle, and the plaintiff suffered injury, such as the left-down aggregate by shocking the vehicle (vehicle registration number 2 omitted). The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages incurred by the accident in Seoul District Court No. 91Da183946 (hereinafter referred to as "previous lawsuit"), and the above court entrusted the plaintiff with the opinion of 9% of the total appraisal value for 9% of the total appraisal value for 9% of the total appraisal value and 9% of the total appraisal value for 9% of the total appraisal value and 9% of the total appraisal value for 9% of the total appraisal value and 9% of the total appraisal value for 9% of the total appraisal value and 9% of the total appraisal value.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. A decision in lieu of a conciliation rendered by a judge in charge of conciliation under Articles 30 and 32 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act has the same effect as a judicial compromise as to the relation of rights and duties disputed between the parties in a case where no objection is raised, or an objection is withdrawn or dismissed, as prescribed by Article 34(4) of the same Act, and res judicata takes effect between the parties. Thus, a decision in lieu of a conciliation rendered by a judge in charge of conciliation under Articles 30 and 32 of the same Act may only

B. However, as decided by the court below, if the disability portion alleged in the claim in the previous lawsuit is not a part different from the disability portion claimed in the previous lawsuit, and if the result of partial appraisal was found to have been a permanent disability as alleged in the previous lawsuit by appraising the rate of loss of labor ability, as in the previous lawsuit, the damage claimed by the plaintiff in the lawsuit in the case in this case is merely a case where the frequency of occurrence is low, and it cannot be deemed a case where it cannot be said to be a case where it is clearly obvious that it was significantly serious to the extent that it could not have been predicted at the time of the previous lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed to be a new damage that does not have the effect of the decision substituting

C. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground that the damage of the claim of this case was an unexpected damage at the time of the previous lawsuit, and it constitutes an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the decision substituting conciliation. Therefore, the ground of

3. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

As seen in the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the effect of the decision substituting conciliation in the previous lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant extends to the instant claim. As long as the Defendant cannot be deemed to additionally bear the instant liability for damages, it is obvious that all of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal premised on it is unacceptable

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)