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 reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance stating “Lone Star” (as 3, 3, 4, 4, and 6) is deemed to be “Lone Star”; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding the following judgments: (c) it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the management fee for the section for common use of the department store of this case should be imposed based on the ratio of the whole area of each shop in the case in accordance with the res judicata of the preceding lawsuit, since the Plaintiff determined that the management fee for the section for common use of the department store of this case should be imposed based on the ratio of the whole area of each store owned by the Plaintiff in accordance with res judicata of the preceding lawsuit.

Res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit, and even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit does not allow a subsequent suit to be asserted differently from the judgment on the prior suit in the subsequent suit if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is the prior suit or contradictory.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da62135 Decided February 11, 2003, etc.). However, the prior lawsuit is a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment regarding management expenses of the fourth and fourth class 266, 273, 277, 278, and 296 of the department store of this case (Evidence 3), while the lawsuit of this case is a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment regarding management expenses of the fourth and third class 266, 273, 277, 278, and 296 of the department store of this case (Evidence 3) by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the previous lawsuit and the instant lawsuit are different in the subject matter of a lawsuit, and the judgment on the subject matter of a prior lawsuit is not a prior question or contradictory relation to the instant lawsuit, which is the subsequent lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for imposing management fees for common areas in the lawsuit of this case.