The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The party’s assertion is the merchants’ association consisting of the shop merchants of the three-story D D in Jung-gu, Seoul, which the Defendant occupied by the Defendant, and the Defendant primarily raised an amount equivalent to the above operating expenses, etc. as unjust enrichment on the ground that the Defendant continued to operate the store without any legal cause by paying operating expenses, etc. if the Defendant withdraws from the Plaintiff, and then incurred a loss equivalent to the above operating expenses, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiff or other members of the Plaintiff incurred a loss equivalent to the above operating expenses.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed in conflict with res judicata since the plaintiff filed the same lawsuit against the defendant prior to the final and conclusive judgment against the defendant.

B. Even if the subject matter of a lawsuit brought before the judgment (hereinafter “the prior suit”) and the lawsuit brought after the judgment (hereinafter “the prior suit”) are not identical, if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is a prior question in the prior suit or if the subject matter of a prior suit is inconsistent with the legal relationship which became final and conclusive in the prior suit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the prior suit is excessive in the subsequent suit, and thus does not allow any assertion different from the judgment in the prior suit in the subsequent suit. However, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of a legal relationship alleged in the subject matter of a lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of a legal relationship on the premise. Therefore, the legal relationship established in the prior suit refers to a legal relationship on which the res judicata effect of

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da55698 Decided December 23, 2005 and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da36022 Decided December 12, 2009