1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 1981, the Plaintiff asserted that he was injured by the Defendant, who was a high school student at the sand president of the Incheon Songdooo Park, due to drinking face, such as the vertebra of the bones and the weight of the bones.

As a result, the plaintiff suffers from the respiratory disorder, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of KRW 6,000,000,000 for the sex surgery expenses, and the amount of disability expenses of the respiratory disorder after the respiratory disorder.

2. Determination

A. The filing of a subsequent suit against the same subject matter of a prior suit between the same parties is not permissible because it conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.

On the other hand, insofar as a lawsuit seeking the performance of part of a claim is filed and the remainder is reserved and only a part is claimed, res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment extends to the remaining remaining claim, so the remaining part cannot be separately claimed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da33008 Decided June 25, 1993, etc.). On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant (this Court Order 2014Da56262) by asserting that “Around April 19, 1981, the Plaintiff suffered injury from the Defendant’s assault and assault, thereby undermining the framework and weight of the bones, and the legacy occurred. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 4,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000.”

The Plaintiff appealed and appealed against the above judgment, but all of the appeals were dismissed.

However, the claim of this case is judged to be a claim on the same subject matter of lawsuit by re-claiming active damages (the cost of operation), passive damages (the part claimed by the plaintiff as "the cost of disability after disability in smoking," which the plaintiff claimed as "the cost of disability after disability in smoking), and consolation money.

Therefore, in this case, it is inconsistent with the above final judgment.