미지급 보상금 청구
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The Plaintiffs are bereaved family members who have “the persons who died on duty” under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.
The defendant is obligated to pay compensation to persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved families based on the above law.
2. The defendant's prior defense prior to the merits is pending in a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, and G dealing with the same subject matter as the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case filed by the above plaintiffs among the lawsuits of this case is in violation of Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides for the prohibition of double lawsuit, and thus,
Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The parties shall not institute any lawsuit again on the case pending in a court.”
In order to apply the above provisions, the subject matter of lawsuit between the previous and the subsequent suit must be the same.
(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1618 Decided September 27, 198, etc.). According to the purport of the entire entries and arguments in the evidence No. 1 as stated in the evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the above plaintiffs seek against the defendant for payment of KRW 10,000,000, which is part of the amount of compensation for the year 2013 as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2014Guhap15290, supra, since the above plaintiffs did not receive compensation for the year 2007 through 2014."
A. The fact that the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the previous lawsuit was dismissed on September 17, 2015, and the dismissal of the appeal on August 16, 2016, and the judgment of the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the appeal on August 16, 2016, and on March 9, 2017. On the other hand, the fact that the amount claimed by the above plaintiffs in the lawsuit in the instant case is compensation for the year 2015 is recognized.
According to the above facts, Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply, since the previous lawsuit and the lawsuit in this case claims the unpaid compensation for a different period of time, it is difficult to view the same as the subject matter of lawsuit.
Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.
3.To the merits.