1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 21, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the agreed amount claim against the Plaintiff, and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “prior judgment”) that “The Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) paid to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 9,625,00 and 15% per annum from February 15, 2018 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “prior judgment”) and the original judgment was served by public notice.

4. The established facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged according to the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The plaintiff's ground for the claim of this case is as shown in the attached Form.

Furthermore, the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case because the period of appeal for the subsequent completion of the above prior judgment was exceeded.

3. If the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, the defendant's address is false or incomplete.

Even if the service is valid, the judgment becomes formally final and conclusive in the absence of the appeal period, and the res judicata becomes effective.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da17804 delivered on November 8, 1991, etc.). In order for the Defendant to dispute the final legal relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the res judicata should be extinguished by filing an appeal for a lawful completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit. This does not change on the following grounds: (a) the copy, original copy, etc. of the previous suit were served by service by public notice, and thus, the Defendant could not have responded to the previous suit due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). Moreover, a subsequent appeal ought to be filed within two weeks from the date on which the cause not to comply with the peremptory term ceases to exist.

(See Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act). The instant lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2018, and the Plaintiff himself/herself was the person who tried to set the period for filing a subsequent appeal in this court.

The above preceding judgment.