A. Scope of a claim for interest and res judicata

B. Form of trial on claims that conflict with res judicata

1. Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive in relation to the legal relationship at the time of closing the final pleadings by the fact-finding court, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the delay in performance after the closing of arguments by the fact-finding court at the time of the conclusion of arguments in the final and conclusive judgment is a preliminary issue and thus becomes subject to the effect of res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in logic by asserting the Defendant’s obligation to pay the money in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment. However, the claim for other parts

2. The rejection of a claim by making a final and conclusive judgment that is inconsistent with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment is not a rejection of the claim on the ground that it is not an unlawful ground because it is not necessary to protect the right.

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na266 delivered on June 8, 1976

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. According to the statements cited in Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5 in the original judgment, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of KRW 880,00 with the same facts as the cause of the claim in this case as the cause of the claim, with the defendant as the cause of the claim in the court below's judgment, at the same time, and the defendant filed a lawsuit for the payment of KRW 880,000,000 with the defendant, but it is evident that the judgment of the plaintiff's failure

2. However, since the claim of this case is sought to pay the amount of 880,000 won per annum from May 2, 1974 to the full payment date, it is obvious that the part of the claim of this case does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the above final judgment, but according to the records, the claim of this amount of 50,000 won per annum from May 2, 1974 to the full payment date is clearly based on the defendant's obligation to pay the above amount of 880,000 won, and it is obvious that the claim of this case is a claim for damages due to delay in performance. On the other hand, since the res judicata effect of the final judgment becomes final and conclusive at the time of the conclusion of the final argument at the fact-finding court, the part of the above final and conclusive judgment after the fact-finding court's argument that there is the defendant's obligation to pay the above amount of 880,000 won, and thus, it cannot be viewed as having the effect of res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive effect (the above part of the final judgment).

3. In addition, as seen earlier, it is apparent that the above final judgment is the judgment of the plaintiff's failure to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff sought payment of the above amount of KRW 880,000 against the defendant, but it is not reasonable to reject the plaintiff's claim by making a decision not inconsistent with the above final judgment as to the part that conflict with the res judicata of the above final judgment among the plaintiff's claims in this case, and thus, rejection of the claim is illegal even though it is not necessary to protect the rights (if it is recognized as abuse of right, it is a separate issue).

4. Therefore, the original judgment shall not be deemed to have erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope and effect of res judicata of the final judgment, and the above law shall not be deemed to have affected the judgment, and it shall be reasonable to bring this point out, and thus, the original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment, in accordance with Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)