공사대금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment specified in paragraph (2) to the assertion added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.
(other than the claim for the cost of bringing-in construction, such as soil and sand, which is separated and fixed;
A. On May 26, 2017, the Defendant’s assertion filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of KRW 3,475,662 out of the cost of carrying out earth and sand, etc. at issue in the instant case by the Changwon District Court Decision 2017Gau1481, the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant. On September 27, 2017, the lower judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 14, 2017.
The plaintiff did not specify that it is a partial claim in the above case, and thus res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment extends to the claim for the cost of removal construction, such as Saturdays in the same case.
Therefore, the part of the claim for the cost of the removal of the land and buildings in this case is contrary to the res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit.
B. 1) Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, that is, the conclusion of the judgment as to the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da31406, Nov. 15, 1996; 9Da55472, Feb. 25, 2000). Original claims and damages for delay are separate from claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40160, Apr. 29, 2005) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40160, Apr. 29, 200). In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on May 26, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of damages for delay (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4717.