1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The Plaintiff asserted the Defendant’s liability for damages under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act regarding the counterclaim as the representative director G, by committing an unlawful act that infringes on the Defendant’s trademark right by intention or gross negligence while performing his/her duties as the representative director, thereby causing the Defendant to compensate for USD 67,804 (hereinafter “$”) in the U.S. dollars to K Co. (K Co.).

Therefore, pursuant to Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the remaining damages after deducting USD 11,852, and USD 23,000 borne by the Plaintiff at the time of his/her employment in G around 2007 from USD 11,852, and USD 23,000, from

The defendant, as a counterclaim, claims for the remaining amount of 28,456,676 won [the amount of damages = 38,53,840 won [the amount of damages = (67,804 USD - 11,852 USD - USD 23,00) x 1,170 won/$] - the amount of goods 10,097,164 won] and damages for delay.

Judgment

Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, filing a subsequent suit between the same parties regarding the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da4981 Decided March 27, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the purport of the entire statement and pleadings by Gap 21, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for payment of damages pursuant to Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Defendant’s trademark right while performing his/her duties as the representative director of G, on the ground that he/she infringed the Plaintiff’s trademark right. However, it is recognized that the said judgment

According to the above facts, the above part of the counterclaim of this case is identical to the previous suit in which the judgment became final and conclusive and the parties, and thus, it is not allowed in conflict with the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is added.