조합아파트가입금반환
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 6, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, etc. against Seoul Southern District Court 2005Gahap6625, and was sentenced on February 8, 2007, to the effect that “the Defendants, D Housing Association, and E shall pay to each of the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 95,00,000 per annum 20% per annum from July 1, 2006 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).
B. The judgment of this case became final and conclusive around March 2007, because the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not appeal against it.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-2, significant facts by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.
A lawsuit filed by a creditor who has already won a favorable judgment against the same claim is inappropriate in principle because there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, the benefit of protection of rights is recognized only when a lawsuit is filed for the extension of prescription due to the excessive completion of extinctive prescription.
However, as seen earlier, the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on March 2007. Accordingly, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on May 29, 2018 after the lapse of ten years from that time, and that the statute of limitations was suspended.
[Plaintiffs submitted to the effect that 10 years have not passed since the date of the conclusion of the judgment of this case, to the effect that they were served/a fixed verification unit (No. 1-1) indicated as June 5, 2008, but the above service/a fixed verification unit is not against the Plaintiff, but against F, which was one of the co-Plaintiffs in the above case]. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights seeking the extension of prescription.
3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.