1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the court decides on the plaintiff's assertion as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion in this Court

A. As to the assertion that the instant resolution is null and void because it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the previous final and conclusive judgment, the instant resolution ratified by the Plaintiff’s assertion on July 23, 2012 (1) is contrary to the previous final and conclusive judgment accepting the claim to nullify the above and entrusted management contract as of July 23, 2012, and thus becomes null and void. (2) The conclusion of the judgment is significant and apparent, and the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment is extended to all means of attack and defense that the parties have asserted or could have asserted before the closing of argument in the previous suit. However, if there is a change in circumstances inconsistent with the previous final and conclusive judgment due to a new cause that occurred after the closing of argument, the res judicata effect is interrupted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da222149, Aug. 30, 2016). The Seoul High Court’s previous final and conclusive judgment concluded on July 23, 2012 that the entrusted contract was null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not correct.

B. 1) Whether the resolution of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant assertion is invalid due to procedural defects in the resolution of ratification of the instant case

(a).