1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "The machinery of this case", which shall be the fifth below the fifth judgment of the court of first instance, shall be dismissed as "the machinery of this case", and "2.0"

The following judgments are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because they are the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part.

【Supplementary Decision】

C. (1) On December 20, 2013, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the lawsuit on the occurrence of a new insurance accident, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have provided the machinery of this case lawfully in the lawsuit above. Therefore, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to exercise the right to indemnity against macrosan because the Plaintiff was paid insurance money even if the insurance accident did not occur, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. The Defendant’s assertion that the insurance accident occurred on March 22, 2014 by lawfully providing the performance to Taesan around March 21, 2014 is contrary to the participating effect that the Defendant, who is the Defendant, could have asserted as common interest in the lawsuit of this case.

The effect of participation between the notifying person and the accused person by the notice of lawsuit is limited to the factual and legal judgment that forms the basis of the conclusion of the final judgment in the previous lawsuit and that can be asserted or asserted as common interests between the accused and the accused person. Thus, the failure of the accused person to make a claim in the subsequent lawsuit with the accused person is limited to the violation of the factual and legal judgment that forms the basis of the conclusion in the final judgment in the previous lawsuit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da838, Apr. 26, 2007). With respect to the instant case, each of the health unit and evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 is merely the same.