The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance as to the assertion that the Plaintiff added a “additional judgment” as to the instant case, and thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. As the Plaintiff filed a claim for the down payment of 10% or more of the service charges against the Defendant in this case, the Plaintiff’s additional judgment clearly excluded the down payment from the previous lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the previous final and conclusive judgment does not extend to the instant lawsuit.

The argument is asserted.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14 through 16, and evidence Nos. 6 (including each number), and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff claimed only the remaining service charges, excluding the down payment explicitly in the service charges of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

① The purport that the Plaintiff explicitly claims only a part of the total service payment in the written complaint or preparation submitted in the previous lawsuit is indicated.

There is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence.

② The Plaintiff submitted Gap evidence No. 3 in the previous lawsuit. According to the record, the Defendant decided on March 12, 2017 on the disbursement of the rearrangement project cost to be paid after the general meeting of the contractor’s selection through the “cases of execution of bid bond and maintenance work cost (service charges and loans)” at the general meeting of the contractor. The attached work cost (service charges and loans) details are divided into KRW 154,290,000 and KRW 210,000 for the Plaintiff.

However, regarding the above disbursement details, it is stated that the actual disbursement details can be changed as a legal counsel at present.