beta
Text
1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiffs claim the payment of consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the deceased and their bereaved families due to the defendant's unlawful act in this case. The defendant's lawsuit in this case is identical to the previous lawsuit in addition to the previous lawsuit in this case, the defendant already recognized the defendant's tort liability as alleged by the plaintiffs in the previous judgment, and the amount of consolation money of KRW 80 million for the deceased, KRW 40 million for the network E, and KRW 8 million for the plaintiffs in this case again, while the plaintiffs again acknowledged consolation money of KRW 8 million for the deceased as the lawsuit in this case, they claim consolation money of KRW 160 million for the deceased, KRW 80 million for the network E, and KRW 20 million for each of the plaintiffs in this case against the plaintiffs, it is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata effect of the previous judgment.
In contrast, where the victim of a tort claims only a part of the damage by specifying that it is a part of the claim, res judicata effect of the judgment on the part of the claim is limited to the scope of the claim regardless of whether or not accepting the claim, and does not affect the remainder
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da10424 delivered on February 11, 2000). In addition, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is only included in the text of the judgment, i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of a legal relationship alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of a legal relationship, which is the premise of the judgment.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58889 Decided December 23, 2010). However, in the previous lawsuit, the Plaintiffs’ claim for part of consolation money as an explicit claim regarding the Defendant’s tort liability following the death of the deceased, as seen above, is recognized.