매매대금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in cases where the other party in the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party in favor of one party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit 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 period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit
(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761 delivered on November 10, 1987, 2005Da74764 delivered on April 14, 2006, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Da3992 delivered on June 7, 2007; hereinafter “the previous suit”), and issued a payment order for winning the original suit from the above court on June 7, 2007, and the same year.
8. 11. It is evident that the above payment order was finalized, and it was filed on March 2, 2018 by the Plaintiff for the purpose of extending the statute of limitations from March 2, 2018.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is brought again against the defendant, who is the other party to the lawsuit of this case, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and ten years have passed since the judgment became final and conclusive, and the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has already expired, the benefit as a lawsuit for interruption of prescription cannot be recognized.
Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as unlawful.