beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff entered the military on April 1, 1968 and was discharged from military service on March 30, 1971, and the Vietnam War was in service from November 8, 1969 to November 27, 1970 while serving, and the fact that the plaintiff was a person of distinguished service who was registered as a person of distinguished service in action or in action upon the determination of grade 5 of the disability rating is acknowledged without a clear dispute between the parties concerned.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On November 1, 1968, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 200 million, which is part of the agreed amount, to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff did not pay to the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 1 billion to the plaintiff when the plaintiff successfully performs the above counter duty.
B. The Defendant asserts that the part of the lawsuit of this case against which the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted in the previous judgment of Seoul High Court, which became final and conclusive on the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, and that the Plaintiff’s claim, which is the same cause of claim, conflicts with res judicata of the previous judgment, and thus, the part on which the Plaintiff’s claim was sought for payment of KRW 10 million and damages for delay is unlawful.
However, in light of the overall purport of the argument in the statement No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3, the plaintiff's cause of claim in Seoul High Court 2012Na78889, which is the prior judgment by the defendant, is that "the defendant is liable to pay damages in accordance with the State Compensation Act because he committed a tort that infringes on the plaintiff's human rights," which is different from the case in which it appears to seek the payment of agreed amount.
Thus, since the claim of this case does not conflict with the res judicata of the above preceding judgment, the defendant's defense of this case cannot be accepted.
C. We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion.