1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the following 2 as to the assertion added by the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. In addition to the Defendant’s tort alleged in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant conspired with L around October 2007 to transfer the Plaintiff’s right under the instant lease agreement to L without permission, and that the Plaintiff committed a tort arbitrarily disposing of the Plaintiff’s housework, etc. in the instant building.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case seeking compensation for damages arising from the above tort of the plaintiff's assertion is contrary to res judicata of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 2012Kahap8704, which became final and conclusive between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it is one of the subject matters of lawsuit unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1671, Nov. 25, 1980). If the judgment becomes final and conclusive in the previous lawsuit claiming positive damages due to the tort, the claim for affirmative damages arising before the closing of argument of the previous lawsuit is identical to the subject matter of the previous lawsuit, and thus, it is not allowed to be contrary to res judicata of the previous judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in No. 6-1, No. 6-2, and No. 4 as to the instant case, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant transferred the right to lease of the instant building to L without permission around October 2012, 207, and arbitrarily disposed of the office fixtures, etc. kept by the Plaintiff on the instant building, and damaged the interior facilities installed by the Plaintiff.” As such, the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap8704 decided against the Defendant.