1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2015, around 21:25, the Plaintiff left the main apartment complex 14th line near the main apartment complex of Nowon-gu, Seoul, Nowon-gu, 288, and was shocked by the front part of the bicycle driven by the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for confirmation of existence of an obligation (hereinafter referred to as “instant previous lawsuit”) to confirm that “the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages against the Plaintiff due to the instant accident does not exist” (hereinafter referred to as “instant previous lawsuit”), and on August 25, 2017, rendered a favorable judgment from the instant court, which became final and conclusive on October 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for totaling KRW 500,000,000,000, including the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, namely, KRW 60,000, including medical expenses, and KRW 292,00,000 for lost income for four years during the period of medical treatment and recuperation, and KRW 148,00,000 for consolation money.

3. Determination

A. Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the relevant legal doctrine affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, the filing of a subsequent suit between the same parties is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.

In addition, in a subsequent suit as to the same subject matter of lawsuit, seeking a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the means of offence and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the prior suit is contrary to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit, and is not asked whether the parties were negligent in not knowing the said means of offence and defense in the prior suit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). B.

In this case, the above facts of recognition are examined.