beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that since the "C" attached to the church operated by the plaintiff suffered damage by the defendant's carpet signboards, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the damage.
Since the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment affects the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, it is not permissible between the same parties to bring a subsequent suit on the same subject matter of a lawsuit as that of the subject matter of a prior suit because it conflicts with the res judicata effect
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant case is seeking damages arising from the Defendant’s signboards to cover the “C” signboard attached to the church operated by the Plaintiff, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981, Mar. 27, 2014). For the same reason, the Plaintiff already filed a claim for damages against the Defendant on September 12, 2012 against Busan District Court Decision 2012Da195249, Jun. 11, 2013, which became final and conclusive on July 3, 2013, 2013. Thus, the instant claim is not acceptable as it contradicts the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment.
In addition, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the same content as the Busan District Court 2013Gapo20198 damages case, and received a judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that it conflicts with res judicata, and thereafter, the appellate court (the appellate court 2014Na3549) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal, and the appellate court (the appellate court 2014Da60903) rendered a judgment on the dismissal of the appeal, and the appellate court (the appellate court 2014Da60903) rendered a judgment on the dismissal of the appeal). 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is justifiable in light of this conclusion, and the appellate court's