The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below rejected the Defendant’s defense of this case’s selective claim against the Defendant for damages of this case’s tort or for restitution of unjust enrichment for which the Plaintiffs are selected, on the grounds that (1) the Plaintiffs’ selective claim against the Defendant contradicts the res judicata of the previous final and conclusive judgment, and thus unlawful, (2) the Defendant returned the amount of KRW 1535 million, which was remitted to A on June 23, 2001, to A on behalf of the Defendant, as the land price paid by A on behalf of the Defendant, but was returned to A., on the ground that the above money was lent to A during the oral argument of the previous final and conclusive judgment, and that the payment of the amount equivalent to the above money was valid on the grounds that the settlement agreement based on the false statement of settlement was made in favor of the Plaintiffs, constitutes a tort, and therefore, it was held that the Plaintiffs, the inheritor of A, are liable for compensation for damages

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's assertion is rejected, and the conclusion of the court below that partially accepted the claim for damages caused by tort among the selective claims by the plaintiffs is acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on res judicata and the validity of the disposition document.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.