A. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the pertinent part is modified or added. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of

B. Each part of the Defendants, other than the Defendants in this case, shall be deleted from the entry “Defendant” in front of each corresponding part of the co-defendants in the first instance trial.

(hereinafter the same shall apply hereinafter) No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, 4th part of the judgment of the first instance, “Defendant E-Building Association” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Association”) shall be incorporated into “Defendant Association.”

In the fourth 3th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "general sale in lots" (hereinafter referred to as "general sale in lots") shall be added to the following.

The 7th 19th 19th 3th 19th 10th 7th 7th 19th 7th 7th 19th 10th 10th 10th 10th 1st 196.

The following shall be added to the "in the first instance court" of the seventh 20th of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The legality of the main claim against the Defendant Union is examined ex officio.

Article 267 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a person who withdraws a lawsuit after a final judgment has been rendered on the merits shall not file the same lawsuit. Here, the same lawsuit does not necessarily mean that the scope of res judicata effect or the prohibition of double lawsuit is the same as that in the case of prohibition of double lawsuit. Thus, if the subsequent lawsuit is based on the prior legal relations or premise that the subject matter of a lawsuit is prior to a lawsuit, even though the subject matter of a lawsuit is different, the plaintiff cannot seek a judgment again for the existence of rights or legal relations which were the subject matter of a lawsuit, in light of the purport and purpose of the above system, it is reasonable to say that the subsequent lawsuit cannot be filed by the same lawsuit against

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18023 delivered on October 10, 1989, etc.). The plaintiff in this case is the plaintiff.