[임치금][집18(3)민,003]
Even in a case involving the claim for damages filed against Nonparty A, even if the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the lawsuit against the Defendant in the case involving the claim for damages filed against Nonparty A, that is, the claim for the deposit of the lawsuit is the claim for return, that is, even if the above two lawsuits are based on the same accident, since the claim is different from the claim, it cannot be deemed that the requirements for notifying the lawsuit have been satisfied, and the extinctive
The principal lawsuit is a claim for return of the deposited grain, which is the amount to be deducted from the inputs that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the instant grain embezzlement accident, that is, the claim for return of the deposited grain that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff, which is, where the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the head of the association and its members at the time of the instant accident, the said two lawsuits are different from the claim, even though the said two lawsuits are based on the same accident, so it cannot be deemed that the requirements for notifying the lawsuit have been satisfied, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the right
Article 77 of the Civil Procedure Act
Goyang-gun Agricultural Cooperatives
Korea
Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 69Na591 delivered on March 12, 1970
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are as follows:
The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is the claim for damages filed against Nonparty 1, who was the head of the Plaintiff association, and was in charge of Nonparty 2, etc. at the time of the instant accident (Seoul Crown District Court 62A6012) against the Plaintiff, etc., who was the head of the association in charge of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant accident, was liable to the Plaintiff for the embezzlement of the instant grain, and the Defendant deducteds the Defendant from the payment of the price for the instant grain. Therefore, even if the two lawsuits are based on the same accident, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages satisfies the requirements of notification as a separate lawsuit. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff received a favorable judgment in the said claim for damages, it cannot be said that there was no right to claim the deposit, and the right to claim the return is in such a relationship. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s final judgment against the Plaintiff after the notice of lawsuit was rendered, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the deposit of the suit was interrupted.
Therefore, the final appeal is without merit, and the costs of final appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng