(영문) 대법원 2014.6.12.선고 2013다83404 판결

1. The res judicata effect of the judgment on a partial claim does not extend to the remaining claim where the victim claims a part of the damage by specifying that it is a partial claim. In this case, the method of specifying that a partial claim is a part of the total amount of damages must be clearly specified, and it is sufficient to clarify that it is the purport of reserving the claim for damages. It is sufficient to clarify that the scope of the damage to be partially claimed is a part of the total amount of damage by indicating that the scope of the damage to be claimed is clearly defined to the extent that it is possible to specify the scope of the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu536, Dec. 23, 1986; 87Meu2478, Jun. 27, 198).

2. The court below reasoned that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in Gwangju District Court 2010dan7923 claiming that the mother of the plaintiff took over 328,00,000 won out of the F's obligation against the plaintiff, and that the above court lost the above court's decision, and that the plaintiff added 4.10 billion won to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages due to non-performance of the duty to provide collateral transfer to G (hereinafter referred to as "the abolition of this case")'s main claim, and that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim cannot be viewed as a combination of the conjunctive claim and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for non-performance of the duty to provide collateral transfer to the plaintiff's main claim, and that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for non-performance of the conjunctive claim cannot be viewed as a combination of the conjunctive claim and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for non-performance of the conjunctive claim for non-performance of the duty to provide collateral transfer to the plaintiff's main claim and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for non-performance of the plaintiff's main claim for non-performance of res judicata as stated.

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below as it is.

According to the records, the plaintiff added the conjunctive claim at the appellate court of the previous lawsuit and sold all of the abolition of this case which the defendant should provide the plaintiff as security for transfer, and thus, the defendant was unable to perform his duty to provide security for transfer to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the non-performance of obligation, and that the plaintiff must compensate for the total purchase and sale of the pigs of this case which the plaintiff had already submitted as evidence No. 4 in the previous lawsuit (the same as the plaintiff submitted as evidence No. 5 in this case). The sales contract of this case contains the fact that 1,700 Du15,000,000 among the pigs of this case is stated in the sales contract of this case.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff asserted that the swine of this case was disposed of to a third party as the conjunctive cause of the previous lawsuit, and the obligation to provide a transfer security to the plaintiff was impossible, and that the plaintiff sustained damages exceeding the above KRW 155,00,000.

On the other hand, the parties may join as preliminaryly, in the purport that they claim a mutually compatible claim that they intend to achieve the same objective either selectively or by attaching the order of priority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da48888, Jun. 29, 2007). In such a case, economic benefits are the same or intermediate.

In addition, it is not necessary to additionally attach revenue stamps within the scope of clothes (see Article 20 of the Regulations on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted more than KRW 155,00,000 as above as damages due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the duty to provide transfer and surety, and filed a claim for damages with priority over compensation of KRW 100,000,000, as in the case of a claim for performance based on the overlapping assumption of obligation, which is possible to achieve the purpose of the claim for damages, without attaching additional stamps on the claim for performance based on the overlapping assumption of obligation.

Therefore, the conjunctive claim of the previous lawsuit constitutes a partial claim because it is clearly stated that the scope of the damages for which part of the previous lawsuit is sought is distinguished from the claim of the remaining part and that the scope of the trial is specified to the extent that it is possible to specify the scope of the previous lawsuit, and that it is a priority claim as a part of the entire damages. Therefore, res judicata effect of the judgment on

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the explicit partial title or the objective scope of res judicata, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The instant ground of appeal assigning this point is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.