매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s 20 equity interest in D’s KRW 40 million from the Defendant to the Plaintiff at KRW 20,000,000,000 from the land association for livelihood countermeasures for the general business complex (hereinafter “instant association”). The Defendant, who was to immediately prepare and deliver the documents necessary for the transaction, such as the transfer contract and receipt, was deemed to evade taxes. However, the Defendant’s failure to deliver the documents appears to be aimed at evading taxes. In accordance with the Defendant’s deception and mistake, the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the said sales contract and the Plaintiff’s claim that KRW 40,000,000 and/
On the other hand, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment extends to the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, 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
In addition, in a subsequent suit as to the same subject matter of lawsuit, seeking a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the means of offence and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the prior suit is contrary to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit, and is not asked whether the parties were negligent in not knowing the said means of offence and defense in the prior suit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da4981 Decided March 27, 2014) comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and the purport of the entire arguments as stated in Gap evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s right to share KRW 20 million against the Defendant in KRW 40 million, and the Defendant refused to prepare a transfer contract and a receipt. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the amount of money paid as the purchase price on the ground that the contract becomes null and void, and this court filed the lawsuit on April 2018.