1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 29, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking construction cost against the Daean Construction Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court 2009Gau22587) and rendered a favorable judgment that “The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 6,120,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 30, 2009 to the day of full payment for the Plaintiff, and from September 18, 2009 to the day of full payment for the Plaintiff”.

Since then, the plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal, but was dismissed (the District Court 2017Na14755), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The plaintiff set-off in the above appellate trial to the effect that "if the amount of damages is deducted from the construction price of the defendant because the defendant suffered losses due to defects such as partial non-construction and erroneous construction in relation to the construction portion, it shall not remain the remainder." However, the appellate court did not accept the above assertion on the ground that there is no evidence

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5 and 6 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion has a damage claim against the defendant in lieu of defect repair, and if it is offset against the defendant's claim for construction price by its automatic claim, the plaintiff's obligation for construction price against the defendant was extinguished in its entirety.

B. Once a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the court or the party cannot make a judgment or assertion contrary to the final and conclusive judgment, and such final and conclusive judgment shall enter into force on the basis of the standard time of the closing

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding compulsory execution based on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding compulsory execution based on a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding compulsory execution.

In this case, the above construction cost is paid by the Plaintiff.