금전
1. The Defendant: KRW 75,00,000 to Plaintiff A; KRW 55,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and each of them, from June 1, 2005 to September 1, 2015.
1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant's establishment of monetary payment obligation, the plaintiffs invested USD 75,000 in Thailand D, and D sold the restaurant and singing room that it operated on July 7, 2004 to the defendant. The defendant asserted that he agreed to accept the investment obligation invested by the plaintiffs among the above restaurant and singing room purchase price and that he would pay it directly to the plaintiffs. The defendant filed a lawsuit for monetary payment claim against the defendant under Seoul Western District Court 2005Gadan8555, Seoul Western District Court 2005. The above court delivered the defendant a service by service by public notice on August 12, 2005, and "the defendant" on August 12, 2005, the judgment below affirmed that "the plaintiff shall pay the plaintiff A the amount of KRW 75,00,000,000, and 555,000,000 and each of them shall be 20% per annum from June 1, 2005."
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 75,00,000, and KRW 55,000,000 to Plaintiff B as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 1, 2005 to September 30, 2015, Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015) and Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015).
2. The defendant's assertion and judgment
A. The defendant's assertion did not accept D's investment debt against D's plaintiffs. Furthermore, since the plaintiffs failed to receive a complaint against the defendant at the time when the Seoul Western District Court 2005dan8555 filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
B. There are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, where a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is exceptionally allowed as a final and conclusive judgment.