1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance deleted the “and final appeal” and “dual” of the third party judgment of the court of first instance under the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and cites it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant’s assertion in the court of first instance is identical

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant alleged that the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case was not confirmed as the defendant's objection and the withdrawal of lawsuit C, and thus, the granting of execution clause is not allowed. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the evidence No. 6, only the case where the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case was filed by the co-defendant E (actually recorded in I) at the time of the filing of the objection, and only C voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit against E.

Ultimately, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the case is identical to that of the Daejeon District Court Branch 2012Da3939, Seosan Branch 2012Gadan39, and that the subject matter of the lawsuit is identical to that of the parties, thus, the judgment

However, the court or parties cannot make a judgment or assertion contrary to the final judgment when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, but such final and conclusive judgment is effective on the basis of the time of closing of arguments at the trial court, which is the standard time of trial proceedings, and thus, the final and conclusive judgment does not affect the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous lawsuit

Therefore, the claim was dismissed on the ground of non-performance of the condition precedent in the previous suit.

Even if the condition has been fulfilled after the closing of argument, this can be re-litigantd on the same claim, unlike the exercise of formation right such as the right to cancel or the right to cancel after the closing of argument.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da50909 Delivered on May 10, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is a health unit and B.