2. The lawsuit of this case is pending.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) while executing railroad construction projects (B; hereinafter “instant project”); (b) accepted real estate listed in the attached list, which was owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (c) rejected the Plaintiff’s payment from the lessee or received the Defendant’s rent; and (d) obstructed the Plaintiff’s business of gas stations operated by the instant real estate.

As above, the Plaintiff suffered losses not paid as KRW 327,350,000 in total from January 2014 to December 2016.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,00,000 as claimed by the plaintiff out of the above KRW 327,500,000 due to damages caused by tort or return of unjust enrichment.

B. Since the final and conclusive judgment which became final and conclusive has res judicata effect binding upon the party and the court, where the party against which the Plaintiff lost files a lawsuit against the other party in the previous suit identical to the final and conclusive judgment against the other party in the previous suit, the said claim shall be dismissed as it is impossible

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1275, Sept. 11, 1979). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages or unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent claimed by the Plaintiff was ruled against the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on the ground that the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant with the same content as that of the said claim (Seoul District Court Decision 2017DaMa356, Sept. 11, 1979). Thus, this part of claim is contrary to the res

2. Determination on the claim for business losses and obstacles

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant accepted the real estate of this case, did not properly compensate for the obstacles on the ground, and did not operate the business due to the project of this case.