2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 4,841,326,481 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from June 29, 1997 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, it is cited as it is.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Notwithstanding the fact that until September 2000, the apartment of this case had been built up to 3 billion won, Defendant U.S. construction and Defendant Kim Byung-in had the part of the construction of the apartment of this case, they had the arbitral tribunal and the court by deceiving the arbitral tribunal and the court as if all of the construction of the apartment of this case was completed by January 7, 1997. The false report on construction supervision and the completion of construction supervision that the construction of the apartment of this case was completed as of January 7, 1997, the apartment of this case was completed by 100% as of January 9, 1997, the copy of the forged monthly construction report, which is the apartment construction supervisor, submitted to the arbitral tribunal and the approval of temporary use of some commercial buildings for the purpose of misunderstanding that the apartment of this case was completed, and that the plaintiff's right to use the apartment of this case was in violation of the plaintiff's fundamental rights, such as the plaintiff's maximum right to use the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff's right to use it was found as a witness.

Therefore, since the third arbitral award of this case and compulsory execution based on the execution judgment, which the above Defendants acquired by the above method, constitute tort against the plaintiff, the above defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred thereby, i.e., the construction cost for the non-execution portion and the compensation for delay calculated in the above arbitral award, from the day after the date when the above Defendants were calculated as compensation for delay, to the date when the construction of the defendant Matra was completed.

(2) Defendant Newness and Sungwon Construction are ① both the construction cost and liquidated damages as seen above are contractual obligations under the instant construction contract, and thus, the said obligation should also be jointly and severally liable pursuant to the instant joint and several liability agreement. ② Even if not, the instant joint and several liability agreement purported to hold the joint and several liability for damages arising from tort as well as the joint and several liability for damages. Accordingly, the money under the instant joint and several liability agreement shall be paid jointly and severally to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination as to the claim against the defendant U.S. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. S.

(1) In violation, even if compulsory execution based on a judgment obtained by a party through a false assertion different from the legal relationship of the substance as the intent to prejudice the other party's rights, in order to recognize res judicata of the final judgment for the legal stability of the party or to exclude the validity of the final judgment, in light of the purport of recognizing res judicata of the final judgment for the legal stability of the party, or the fact that the claim for revocation by a lawsuit for retrial is a principle method in the case where there exists a ground for retrial. Compulsory execution based on the final judgment is limited to cases where it is clearly against justice that respect the validity of the final judgment, such as where the judgment was rendered in the state where the procedural basic rights of the party were infringed, or where there exists a ground for retrial, and thus it is obvious that such respect is obviously against justice (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da21808 delivered on December 5, 195), the arbitral award has the same effect as that of the final judgment, and as long as a lawsuit for revocation of the final judgment has been prepared as to the retrial of the final judgment, it shall be deemed to be limited to cases where fundamental procedural basic rights are infringed.

However, among the plaintiff's assertion as to the actual relation ①, the construction supervision completion report as of January 7, 1997 was falsely prepared, or the plaintiff's assertion that business photographs and written approval for provisional use were submitted for the purpose of protecting the substantive relation is not a ground for the revocation of the arbitral award as stipulated in Article 1 of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 1999). Thus, it is limited to the remaining parts.

First, as to the assertion that the monthly process report in the name of Park Jong-soo was forged, it is difficult to believe that all the statements in the above 45-2, A46-3, A53-1, A53-2, and the testimony in the first instance trial by the witness of the first instance trial are merely the unilateral statement of leapjin, and it is insufficient to recognize the forged facts only with the entries in the above 8-2 through 5, A30, 32, 54, 65, and 75, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Rather, according to the statements in Eul 2-1, 2, and Eul 3, there is no other evidence to prove it. However, according to the fact that the defendant Kim Byung-sik filed a complaint for the uttering of the above investigation document on the grounds that he forged the monthly process report as above, the plaintiff's assertion that he was subject to a disposition of suspicion from the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office on December 11, 2001 and the plaintiff's assertion that the above part of the report was sealed results were the same.

Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that each statement of Gap 41, 42, and 45-1, and Gap 46-3, which seems to correspond thereto, has influenced the arbitral award by having the defendant make a false statement in the arbitral proceedings by referring to the fact that he/she claims that he/she will become a prosecutory investigator and purchase his/her office as a prosecutory investigator, and it is insufficient to recognize the above argument only with the statement of Gap 76-1 and the testimony of the above leapman, and there is no other evidence to support it, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the substantive relation is without merit.

Next, among the plaintiff's assertion that the above procedural basic rights were infringed, as to the fact that the defendant Kim Byung-in could not escape the last end by exercising influence on the prosecutor's staff for the purpose of excluding the plaintiff's participation in the arbitral proceedings, the health team, the highest order of the defendant Kim Byung-in filed a complaint from the defendant Kim Byung-in and prosecuted the defendant Kim Byung-in, and the fact that the last order of the defendant Kim Byung-in was finally acquitted does not clearly dispute the fact that the defendant Kim Byung-in was finally acquitted, but further, it seems that the defendant Kim Byung-in did not unfairly exercise influence on the prosecutor's staff for the purpose of excluding the plaintiff's participation in the arbitral proceedings, and that the defendant Kim Byung-in did not have any reason to recognize the plaintiff's testimony as a witness of the first instance court, the defendant Kim Byung-in's testimony as a witness of the court of first instance and the defendant Kim Byung-in's testimony as a witness of the court of first instance, and there is no reason to recognize it as an attorney's participation in the arbitral proceedings.

On the other hand, even in relation to the assertion that Defendant U.S. Construction and Kim Byung-jin interfered with the plaintiff's access to the apartment site of this case on the part of the plaintiff, and thus interfered with the plaintiff's proof in the arbitral proceedings, the above assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Finally, with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the above Defendants exercised influence over the appointment of arbitrator, it is difficult to believe that the statements of health team, A6-2, A81, and the testimony of the above leapman are false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the procedural basic right of the plaintiff was infringed in the arbitral procedure is all without merit.

(2) If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the above defendants acquired the third arbitral award and execution judgment of this case and committed a tort against the plaintiff is without merit.

C. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant’s newness and construction of sexual origin

(1) First, as acknowledged above, the plaintiff asserted joint and several liability for nonperformance, as to the claim for damages on the apartment of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the construction of the apartment of this case was not constructed, and that the construction work on the apartment of this case was completed, and that the third arbitral award of this case rendered a judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay KRW 2,600,022,829, which is the amount calculated by deducting the compensation for delay from the total construction cost of the contract of this case, based on the total construction cost of the contract of this case. Despite the plaintiff's objection, the validity of each arbitral award of this case can no longer be asserted. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for damages and the compensation for delay arising from the non-construction of the above defendant against the above defendant did not occur, or the contract liability of the above defendant against the plaintiff was extinguished due to the deduction from the construction price claim of the above defendant against the above plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit.

(2) Next, the reason why the responsibility for joint and several liability for tort is not recognized as tort liability against the plaintiff of the defendant Matra Construction, the principal debtor of the joint and several liability letter of this case, is as shown in the above Section 2-B. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and all of them are dismissed.

Judge Gu-Appellee (Presiding Judge) Noh Jeong-hee