대여금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was sentenced by the Seoul High Court in around 2011 to the effect that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff a loan amounting to KRW 243,981,568, and delay damages therefrom,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
For the interruption of extinctive prescription of a loan claim against the defendant under the above judgment, the plaintiff sought the payment of the above loan and damages for delay to the defendant by the lawsuit in this case.
2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.
A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party identical to the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit of
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). (B)
In light of the above legal principles, according to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on June 10, 201 to the effect that "the defendant would pay the plaintiff a loan of 243,981,568 won and damages for delay thereof" (the above court 2010Na417), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 6, 2011 is significant in this court.
However, the instant lawsuit was filed on November 7, 2018 after about seven years and four months from the day when the judgment became final and conclusive, which was the previous suit, and was filed on November 7, 2018, and the completion of prescription remains about two years and eight months, and even if based on April 4, 2019, which was the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, it is evident that the completion of prescription remains about two years and three months until the completion of prescription and that it is apparent
Since the instant lawsuit does not constitute a case where the completion of prescription is imminent, there is no benefit in the protection of rights.
3. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.