1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from December 21, 2016 to the day of full payment,” which became final and conclusive on February 16, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the player price with the Changwon District Court 2016Gau1989, Seowon District Court 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “relevant case judgment”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Although the plaintiff's assertion won the judgment in the related case where the defendant claimed for the payment of the player fee against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the player price to the defendant, and it is only a matter that must be resolved in the transaction relationship with the defendant, C

Therefore, it is sought to confirm that there is no obligation to pay players based on the judgment of the relevant case against the defendant.

3. The above reasons asserted by the Plaintiff are that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the players against the Defendant does not exist at the beginning, and it is evident that the judgment falls under the grounds before the closing of argument in the relevant case.

As seen in the above facts, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff for the claim for the payment of players and received a favorable judgment in the judgment of the relevant case, and the judgment became final and conclusive. However, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the grounds prior to the closure of arguments in the above final and conclusive judgment, it cannot be recognized that the existence of an obligation exists as at the time of the closure of arguments in the final and conclusive judgment by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da8037 delivered on September 9, 1994). Therefore, insofar as the judgment became final and conclusive by a judgment of related cases in a lawsuit claiming performance against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s existence of the same content against the Defendant as the cause of the claim is re-verification of the existence of the obligation.