광고대금
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. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. The complaint and the judgment of the court of first instance were all served by public notice. The defendant was served by public notice in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice on May 26, 2015 by public notice and became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice at that time. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is legitimate.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. According to the evidence Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the Gwangju District Court 2003 Ghana14729, and on June 3, 2003, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,591,00 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from June 1, 2003 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment in a prior suit"), and the above judgment is recognized as final and conclusive on July 4, 2003.
Where a party who has won a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party in a lawsuit again files a claim identical to the previous lawsuit against the other party in the previous lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). According to the records of this case, the Plaintiff’s judgment was rendered on May 10, 2013 when about nine years and ten months elapsed from the time the judgment in the previous suit became final.