1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for wage claim as Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ghana31526.

B. In the foregoing case, on May 9, 2013, “Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case)” shall pay KRW 6,000,000 to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) until June 10, 2013.

However, if the defendant does not pay the above amount by the above payment date, the unpaid amount shall be paid in addition to 20% interest per annum from the date following the payment date to the date of full payment.

‘The decision of compulsory adjustment' is called ‘the decision of compulsory mediation of this case'.

(C) The decision was made and confirmed around that time. The plaintiff did not pay to the defendant the amount of money according to the compulsory adjustment decision of this case until now. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Eul's entry in the evidence No. 1, and the purport

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay wages of 6 million won according to the compulsory adjustment decision of this case on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not employ the Defendant, and that there is no obligation to pay the above money.

On the other hand, the res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit which is identical to the subject matter of a prior suit that has res judicata, and at the same time, even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is the prior question of a prior suit or contradictory relation to the subject matter of a prior suit, the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit does not allow a subsequent suit to be asserted in the prior suit by asserting the method of attack

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). Moreover, in a prior suit, whether a party was negligent or negligent in not having been aware of, or having been unaware of, the means of offence and defense.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79968, Mar. 27, 2014). The Plaintiff in this case.