1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio as to the determination of the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit. On April 2, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant does not exist in excess of KRW 1,580,079 regarding the instant accident, and on April 2, 2015, against the Plaintiff and the perpetrator D of the instant accident, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2015Ga60717). In this case, the Plaintiff can achieve the purpose of the instant lawsuit by seeking a dismissal judgment (the res judicata effect) in the subsequent action brought by the Defendant. In light of the fact that, without the Plaintiff’s consent, there is no risk that the Defendant could not obtain the res judicata effect initially sought by the Plaintiff due to the withdrawal of the subsequent action without the Plaintiff, the instant lawsuit became invalid at the time of the Defendant’s filing the subsequent action, which eventually became invalid.

2. As to the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff's filing of a separate subsequent action, which is not a counter-action, shall not be permitted as nullifying the results of the previous physical appraisal (as a result, the defendant shall withdraw the subsequent action and file a counter-action in the litigation procedure in this case) even though the plaintiff has completed the physical appraisal in the litigation procedure in this case and has actually reached the completion stage of the trial, not a counter-action.

On the other hand, the lawsuit of this case and the subsequent action do not correspond to the overlapping lawsuit because the parties' claims are not identical, and the plaintiff can withdraw the outcome of physical examination in this case through the procedures such as the transmission of documents, and not always allow the counterclaim in the litigation procedure of this case, and therefore, Article 269 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the counterclaim are remarkably allowed.