2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was tried from the Sung-gu District Court’s Sung branch of the Daegu District Court to engage in the occupational embezzlement of 2012 high-level 83 business. On February 27, 2013, the Defendant, who had a title to the GJ C (hereinafter “C”), submitted a written impeachment (hereinafter “instant impeachment”) as shown in the attached Form to the said court.

B. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking consolation money against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the preparation and submission of the instant impeachment letter, etc., and received a judgment of full loss on August 12, 2015 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2014Kadan2183), and appealed therefrom, but the judgment of dismissal was rendered on December 16, 2015 (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Na13728), and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 7, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the impeachment of this case was made and distributed falsely, so the defendant shall pay consolation money of KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff in compensation for damages for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

3. 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 against 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

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da49981 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, which included the claim for consolation money due to the impeachment of the instant impeachment before the Plaintiff institutes the instant lawsuit, and the judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case conflicts with the res judicata of the said judgment against the said lost judgment, and accordingly, the court cannot make a judgment inconsistent with the previous lawsuit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.