beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant provided goods equivalent to KRW 81,951,000 in total on seven occasions from November 26, 2014 to January 16, 2015, and that the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the said goods price and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. In a case where a person who was rendered a final and conclusive judgment against the previous suit institutes the same lawsuit again, the claim should be dismissed by making a judgment inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 76Da1488 delivered on December 14, 1976, etc.). B.
In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant supplied the goods, such as the electric heat from November 2014 to January 2015. On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order against the Defendant seeking payment of KRW 81,928,00 for the goods and delayed payment thereof (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da2810). The Defendant filed an objection against the above payment order, and the above case was performed as the litigation procedure (this Court Decision 2015No7109). This is recognized that the Defendant received the goods from the Plaintiff, but this is limited to the sales of the goods on the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim for loans, etc. against C or the Plaintiff, who is the actual representative and operator, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received the goods from the Plaintiff as the premise of the contract for the supply of the goods. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on July 28, 2015.
C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim amount as the instant case was somewhat different from the claim amount claimed in the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit, but in both cases, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods against the Defendant.