2. Costs of appeal and the expansion thereof.

A. The Plaintiff leased from Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Housing Building (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 3,500,000 as lease deposit.

B. After that, while the redevelopment project was conducted on the area to which the instant building belongs, the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s son, received KRW 2,000,000 as the compensation for resettlement from the lot Construction, and received KRW 2,000,000 from E as the remainder of the deposit for lease, and delivered all of them to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around July 1995, the Plaintiff transferred the right to use and benefit from the building of this case to the Defendant; (b) instead, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 200,000 per month to the Plaintiff under the name of the mother living expenses of D, living together with the Plaintiff

(hereinafter “instant agreement.” However, the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 per month from August 30, 1995 to December 3, 1996, and paid KRW 100,000 on July 15, 1997, and did not pay all the instant agreement amount.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 64,000,000 payable and delayed payment damages for the agreed amount.

B. Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, the same party’s filing of a subsequent suit on the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.

In addition, it is against res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit to seek a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the method of attack and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the previous suit in the subsequent suit on the same subject matter of lawsuit, and further, it is not known that the parties were unaware of the said method of attack and defense