1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C leased the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant as KRW 1.5 million per annum, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate from C on March 7, 2018.

Since the Defendant did not pay a rent from May 10, 2014, the instant real estate lease agreement was terminated. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1.5 million per annum from May 10, 2014 to the delivery date of the said real estate.

2. The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment extends to a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, the same party’s filing of a subsequent suit in respect of the same subject matter of a lawsuit as that of the previous suit is not permissible as it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981, Mar. 27, 2014). According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 9 and 10, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for delivery of the instant real estate under the same cause of claim as this case, and the judgment was dismissed on January 29, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the claim for delivery of the instant real estate cannot be accepted.

At the same time, even though the subject matter of a lawsuit in the subsequent suit is not the same as that in the prior suit, if the judgment on the subject matter of a lawsuit in the prior suit is a prior question or contradictory one, the judgment on the subject matter of the prior suit does not allow the plaintiff to make a claim different from the judgment on the prior suit in the subsequent suit (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking implementation of the procedure for the ownership transfer registration of the