1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2.

1. The scope of this court’s trial at the first instance court filed a claim for the payment of the money stated in the above purport. The court of first instance held that the Defendant embezzled KRW 1,00,000 for the parking lot rent received from C on January 7, 2006, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the return, and accepted the remainder of KRW 750,000 for embezzlement, and only the Defendant appealed against this claim, the subject of the judgment at this court is limited to the part of the claim for embezzlement of KRW 750,000 for the embezzlement of KRW 750,00.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As the Defendant alleged to be the Plaintiff’s representative, among the management expenses kept from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007, the Defendant embezzled KRW 750,000, a sum of KRW 50,000 per month and KRW 15 times per month, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 750,000 (hereinafter “the instant embezzlement money”) and the delay damages therefrom.

B. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit regarding the embezzlement, which is the scope of the judgment of the competent court.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, filing a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit against the same claim as the previous suit in favor of a final and conclusive judgment is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. In exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 19, 201 in the lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2010Da119126, hereinafter “the prior suit of this case”) claiming management expenses, etc. (hereinafter “the prior suit of this case”) brought against the Defendant, and the Defendant appealed (the same court 201Na8507), but the appeal was dismissed on July 8, 201, and the Defendant appealed (Supreme Court 201Da68029) but filed a final appeal against the Defendant.