1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff is an autonomous organization composed of the sectional owners of the apartment complex located in Pyeongtaek-gu, 1094, Chungcheongnam-do, Cheongbuk-do, 1094 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). From the sectional owners of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff was transferred the right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair against the Defendant.

The Class A fire doors (household door, shelter space door, and section for common use) installed by the Defendant on the apartment of this case are “refeasible defects in the performance of the fire doors,” which do not satisfy the fireproof performance and exhaustive performance of the fire doors as required by the Korean Industrial Standards, so the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages in lieu of the defect repair caused by the said defect.

B. The Defendant’s main defense defense Plaintiff was already compensated for damages in lieu of the defect repair of the defects related to the instant apartment due to the Seoul High Court’s decision to recommend reconciliation in 2015Na2002667.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it conflicts with the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment.

C. 1) Determination 1) On the other hand, the decision of recommending a compromise has the same effect as a judicial compromise if there is no objection within the prescribed period (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act). On the other hand, a judicial compromise has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment and has the same effect as that of a final and conclusive judgment. If a compromise is achieved, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relationship is extinguished and a new legal relationship arising from a judicial compromise is formed effectively. In addition, in a case where there is a decision of recommending a compromise between the same parties as to the existence of a right or legal relationship that is disputed in a lawsuit, the parties may not assert any objection against it and the court may not make a decision inconsistent with it (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da29557, Apr. 10, 2014). Meanwhile, Article 3.