양수금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is that “702,780,180 won” under the second part of the judgment of first instance shall be deemed “702,780,810 won” and the argument that the plaintiff made in the first instance or the trial is identical to the ground of the judgment of first instance, except for the following determination as to the argument that the plaintiff made in the first instance or the trial, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. In order for the representative director C of the Defendant’s assertion B to avoid the limit of the amount of loans extended to the same person, the Defendant, as the principal debtor in the form of a principal debtor and understanding the same, and the Defendant does not assume the responsibility as the debtor. As such, the Defendant is merely a person who borrowed his name, and the Defendant is a corporation B and C as the substantial principal debtor, and thus the agreement of loans extended in the name of the Defendant constitutes a false indication and thus null and void.
However, even if it is not so, the term of five-year extinctive prescription is applied to the loan of this case as the principal and interest of commercial claim, and five-year extinctive prescription has elapsed since the due date expired.
B. The final and conclusive judgment shall also have effect on the successors subsequent to the closure of pleadings (see Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The successors following the closure of pleadings refer to those who succeed to the rights and obligations which are the subject matter of lawsuit from the parties or succeed to the eligibility of the parties in dispute after the closure
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da52864 delivered on April 26, 1996). Moreover, seeking a judgment inconsistent with the existence of legal relations determined in the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit by asserting the method of attack and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the previous suit in the same lawsuit is contrary to the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981 Decided March 27, 2014). Meanwhile, a claim finalized by a judgment constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription.