1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to the effect that “The Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the gas station located in Pyeongtaek-si C under the name of his spouse (hereinafter “the gas station in this case”). The Defendant transferred KRW 5,000,000 out of the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s D due to monthly pay, performance-based bonus, etc., and the Plaintiff was liable to pay KRW 55,00,000,000, which the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff did not receive the above claim from D.”

B. On September 24, 2015, the instant court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge “the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay the monthly salary, etc. regarding the award and operation of the instant gas station” (hereinafter “the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case does not conflict with the res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit of this case, since the defendant asserts that the assignment of the claim of this case is a concurrently assumed obligation.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is a claim for an agreed amount under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay a monthly salary, etc. concerning the successful bid and operation of the instant gas station, which is alleged in the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit. It cannot be deemed as a separate lawsuit only with different legal arguments on the nature of the Defendant’s assignment of claims, and thus, it goes against the res judicata effect of the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit.

Furthermore, since the assignment of claims and the assumption of obligations are entirely separate legal acts, there is no ground to interpret the assignment of claims claimed by the Plaintiff as the assumption of obligations ( there is no clear argument as to who takes over a certain obligation), the Plaintiff’s assertion is therefore without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant.