The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment extends to a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, the same party’s filing of a subsequent suit against the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible as it conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment

In addition, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment extends to any means of attack and defense in which the parties have asserted or could have asserted before the closing of argument in the previous suit. However, in a case where there is a change in circumstances inconsistent with the judgment in the previous suit due to a new cause that occurred after the closing of argument, the effect of res judicata is interrupted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da24847, 24854, Oct. 27, 1992). In addition, a new cause that occurred after the closing of argument refers to a new fact, and there is a new evidence

Circumstances, such as the existence of a new legal assessment or any other judgment that contains such a legal assessment, are not included therein.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

1) H Co., Ltd. (formerly, I Co., Ltd., Ltd., hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”)

) On March 28, 2003, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) holding five parcels, including Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul J on March 28, 2003 is limited to Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

(2) The sum of “land owners” and “E, F, and Nonparty P and Q (hereinafter collectively referred to as “land owners”).

The apartment building of 20 households was newly built on the above land, and the land owners agreed to pay in kind to the non-party company for the construction price for 13 households except for 7 households designated by the land owners.

On November 2003, the non-party company completed almost the apartment of this case but the National Bank, a creditor of the designated party E, attached E shares of each of the individual households of this case, and entrusted the court on November 16, 2006.