1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant A and the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendant corporation.

1. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a business partnership agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and paid KRW 100 million as deposit.

However, as Defendant A did not comply with the guidelines for settlement of interior facilities deduction as stipulated in the above contract, the Plaintiff terminated the contract around July 2016 and demanded the return of KRW 100 million.

Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) are companies incorporated by abusing their legal personality to evade the same or legal personality as Defendant A.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return the above deposit KRW 100 million to the plaintiff.

2. We examine whether this part of the lawsuit against the defendant A and the defendant B is legitimate ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant A and the defendant B.

According to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da95161 Decided April 6, 2017, attached to the Plaintiff’s written application, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the refund of deposit against the Defendant A with the same cause of claim as that of the instant claim, and the Defendant A rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100 million and its delay damages. Meanwhile, the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 19, 2017 is significant in this Court.

Therefore, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive favorable judgment, the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant A claims the same as the previous suit against the defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Meanwhile, according to each of subparagraphs 1-2 and 3 of subparagraphs 1-2 and 3, Defendant B is recognized as a corporation of registration number E, which was established on August 2, 2002 and has an address in Seoul, Gangnam-gu D and 101, and whose registration number is the same as that of Defendant A and its incorporation date, address, and registration number.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case against the defendant B is also the same company.