A. The significance and effect of res judicata

B. The objective scope of res judicata

A. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment refers to a binding force in which the parties concerned are unable to make any arguments that conflict with it and the court is unable to make any decisions that conflict with it, as the content of the legal judgment contained in the text of the final and conclusive judgment becomes a new standard to regulate the relations between the parties concerned after the final and conclusive judgment. In such a case, as well as where a defense is made as a passive party (defendant), the argument that conflict with the res judicata cannot be asserted.

B. The objective scope of res judicata is that included in the text of the judgment, that is, the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations claimed as a subject matter of lawsuit itself, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations as a premise of the judgment.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da1338 delivered on November 23, 1976, 83Da14 delivered on December 28, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 70Da1759 delivered on September 29, 1970

Chungcheong Bank Co., Ltd.

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na126 delivered on October 30, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records and the judgment of the court below, in this case where the plaintiff sought an order from the defendant on the ownership of the building of this case and the defendant raised a defense that he could not respond to the request for surrender until he was returned the deposit money for the building of this case, the court below held that the defendant's defense of this case is groundless because the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Daejeon District Court 85Gahap70 for the claim for the return of deposit money for the building of this case and received the final judgment of dismissal. The purport of the judgment of the court below is that the defendant's simultaneous performance defense is in conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous final judgment and thus it cannot be permitted.

Since the contents of a legal judgment included in the text of a final and conclusive judgment are new criteria for regulating the relations between the parties to the lawsuit after the fact that the same matter becomes a matter of litigation, the parties cannot make any arguments that conflict with this, and the court is unable to make any decisions that conflict with this. In this case, the argument that conflict with the res judicata cannot be made even in the case of a defense as a small party as an active party, as well as in the case of a defense as a small party (defendant).

Of course, the objective scope of res judicata is included in the text of the judgment, i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations, which is the premise of the judgment.

According to the court below's determination, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for the return of deposit money for the building of this case (Seoul District Court 85Gahap70, Daejeon District Court 85Gahap270) but this became final and conclusive upon the ruling of dismissal on the ground that the claim for the return of deposit money for lease on a deposit basis cannot be acknowledged. Therefore, res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment affects the existence of the right

However, if the defendant raises a defense of simultaneous performance based on the right to claim the return of the deposit money which was denied in the above final and conclusive judgment in this case, it cannot be allowed as it conflicts with the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below in the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of res judicata.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)