The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Before the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the lower court determined that: (a) prior to Nonparty 1’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant agreed to pay Nonparty 2 the amount equivalent to the instant promissory note by June 23, 190, with the total face value of 25,00,000,000 won, which is stated that the said Nonparty 2 paid to the Plaintiff; and (b) as a result of filing a lawsuit against the Defendant for payment of the said promissory note under Seoul Residential District Court’s Ordinance No. 9921, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered; (c) the Defendant’s endorsement under the name of the Defendant on the said promissory note was forged by Nonparty 1; and (d) the Defendant’s filing of the instant lawsuit with the said court during the period of 90Na3087, the lower court’s appeal did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the allegation that the amount equivalent to the said promissory note would be paid to the Plaintiff by June 23, 1990.

2. Examining the evidence presented by the court below by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts, such as the theory of lawsuit, in its process.

In addition, even though a lawsuit under the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of a district court against a judgment by a single judge of a district court is newly added or changed in a lawsuit under the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of the district court in the second instance while a case on appeal against a judgment by a single judge of the district court is tried in the second instance, the jurisdiction of the court in the first instance is exclusive jurisdiction determined by the existence of the court in the first instance, and it does not affect the already determined appellate court jurisdiction, and thus, it is possible to judge any additional or modified claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da241, Sept. 21, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 70Da743, Jun. 30, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 70Da743, Jun. 30, 1970).

The issue is ultimately, on the premise that the judgment of the court below is criticized for the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or on the premise that the facts acknowledged by the court below are inconsistent with the facts, it is nothing more than that of the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to res judicata against the judgment of the court below in its independent opinion as to the scope of the judgment of the court below as

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)