1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff was awarded a contract for a new construction of multi-household housing to his/her own external villages, but without undergoing a completion inspection on the wind that is executed differently from the design drawing, and there is a dispute over the payment of the construction cost between B and B.

B On December 9, 1993, the judgment of December 1995, ordering the Plaintiff to pay “17,525,186 won of the construction cost and damages for delay” (hereinafter referred to as “previous final judgment”) was finalized on September 19, 1995 by filing a lawsuit claiming construction cost against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the lawsuit claiming construction cost”).

In around 200, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for review (hereinafter “the lawsuit for review”) against B, but the dismissal judgment was rendered on the ground that there is no ground for review, and it became final and conclusive on July 15, 2003.

On May 194, 194, after the decision of the first instance court was rendered, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Dong Office of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office to the effect that “Around May 24, 1992, with the request of B to confirm the contents of the false contents, the Plaintiff did not confirm the contents of the document.” However, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with B stating that “A lawsuit was committed by submitting it as evidence and receiving a favorable judgment.” However, the Plaintiff rendered a final decision of non-guilty

After that, the plaintiff filed a complaint against B on several occasions at the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office and the Sung-nam Branch of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, etc., but all of them were dismissed on the ground of ‘insufficient evidence' or ‘the completion of the statute of limitations'.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 7, 11 through 13, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29 through 36, 44, and 45 each statement, the whole purport of the argument, and the prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office, the Seoul Dong Branch Prosecutors' Office, and the Suwon Branch Prosecutors' Office, in which the plaintiff argued for the judgment of this Court, are in charge of the case that the plaintiff filed a complaint, are in relation to Eul.