1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al. by means of a public notice, stating that "the plaintiff (the plaintiff of this case) and C shall jointly and severally pay 10 million won to the plaintiff (the defendant of this case) and 20% interest per annum from December 18, 2011 to the date of full payment" is "the judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case".

(B) On January 14, 2012, the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 14, 2012. (b) On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for perusal and reproduction of documents related to the lawsuit in the instant judgment. [Grounds for Recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties; (iii) substantial facts in this court; (iv) Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4; and (v) Party B’s evidence No. 1 (including the number with

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s certificate of the borrowed money against the Plaintiff was modified, but based on that, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had a claim against the Plaintiff and received a favorable judgment by public notice. As such, the Plaintiff’s loan obligation against the Defendant does not exist, and accordingly, sought confirmation of the existence of the obligation.

B. The res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which the judgment in the previous suit is 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 in the previous suit, if the judgment in the previous suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment in the previous suit, the judgment in the previous suit does not allow the subsequent suit to assert the means of attack and defense that existed before the closing of argument in the previous

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). Moreover, in a prior suit, the parties are aware of the means of offence and defense.