1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, such as the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court:

(1) On January 1, 1993, the Plaintiff, the father of the Defendant, leased and resided in part of the deceased C’s house. On January 21, 1993, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 10 million for damages against the deceased, asserting that the fire occurred in the above house and the goods owned by the Plaintiff were partly destroyed. (2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the deceased, claiming that “the Plaintiff incurred damages due to the above fire” by the Jinju District Court 97Gau264, Jinju District Court of Pakistan, Seoul, 197.

On June 13, 1997, mediation was concluded that “The net C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000, and the Plaintiff shall waive the remaining claims.” At that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 500,000 from the net C according to the above mediation.

Since then, the deceased C died in around 199.

3. On December 20, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 55 million in compensation for damages, asserting that “the Plaintiff sustained a large number of damages, such as inn, meals, costs of lawsuit, external revenues, outdoor compensation, books and teaching materials, straws, etc., such as clothes, such as strings, music dust, cosmetics, cosmetics, kitchen, bedclothes, clothing, kitchen, kitchen, food, kitchen, home appliances, furniture, lock, congested goods, and mental suffering,” with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Da39414, Dec. 20, 2005.

On May 3, 2006, the above court had already filed a lawsuit against the deceased C, the father of the defendant, to seek compensation for damages caused by the fire. Among the above claims, the part other than the damage caused by the suspension in excess, the damage caused by the suspension in excess, the damage caused by the loss caused by the loss caused by the suspension in excess, and the damage caused by the loss in the loss of the water by the suspension in violation of the res judicata effect of the mediation protocol is already asserted against the deceased C, and there is no reason to believe that the remaining damage, namely, the damage caused by the suspension in excess, the damage caused by the suspension in excess, the loss caused by the loss in excess, and the damage caused by the loss