손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim with the Incheon District Court Decision 2014Da58712; and (b) during the process of the said lawsuit, the conciliation was concluded to confirm that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any claims and obligations other than paying KRW 1.8 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Of the plaintiff's claim, the part on the legal relationship before September 18, 2014, which was prepared by the above conciliation protocol, is contrary to res judicata of the above conciliation protocol.
B. The conciliation of judgment is established by stating the matters agreed between the parties in the protocol, and the conciliation protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, such as a protocol of judicial conciliation, res judicata takes effect between the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104960, 104977, Mar. 27, 2014). Res judicata means that a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which res judicata has res judicata effect is not permitted. At the same time, even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit becomes a prior question in the prior suit or is inconsistent with the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit, the subsequent suit
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da47361 Decided December 27, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da19083 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, 22, and Eul evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim of KRW 2 million (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da58712 Decided March 12, 2012) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on September 18, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002; 2013Da19083, Nov. 28, 2013).
As above, the above.