계약금 반환 및 위약금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On February 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of the contract deposit and the claim for penalty (No. 2007da58704), and on which February 18, 2009, the court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 and interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from June 20, 2004 to February 18, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment before the instant lawsuit”). The judgment before the instant lawsuit became final and conclusive on March 17, 2009.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, A1-1, 1-2, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the prescription period of claims based on the judgment of the previous suit in this case. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case.
Article 165(1) of the Civil Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment shall be ten years, even where the claim falls under the short-term extinctive prescription, and the interruption of prescription by “a seizure” among the grounds interrupting extinctive prescription shall be deemed to have expired when the seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017). In the event the prescription is interrupted, the period of prescription that has lapsed until interruption shall not be included in the short-term extinctive prescription, but shall newly
(Article 178(1) of the Civil Act. 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 for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful
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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008), No. 1