사취금 등
1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A, KRW 57,520,00, and KRW 15,000,000, and each of the above amounts.
In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendants on the claim for private money (Seoul Central District Court 2006Kadan208371) with the attached cause of the claim, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 7, 2007 (hereinafter "the judgment of the case"), and the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case with the same content as the above claim for the extension of extinctive prescription against the judgment of the case.
Although Defendant E, F, G, and H asserted that the claim in this case should not be recognized as being insufficient evidence. However, it is not allowed for the parties to make a new assertion contrary to the contents of the final judgment due to the grounds that the final judgment, upon the final judgment, could have arisen prior to the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court, is interrupted by res judicata of the final judgment. Therefore, it is not allowed for the parties to make a new argument contrary to the contents of the final judgment on such grounds. The prior judgment in this case was already finalized, and the claim of the above Defendants in this case was instituted for the extension of extinctive
Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiffs' claims for all reasons.