beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.18 2017가합578998

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 972,00,000 for the plaintiff and 11% per annum from March 18, 2002 to August 29, 2007.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the agreed amount as the Daegu District Court 2007Gahap10270

(hereinafter referred to as “prior action”). (b)

On October 30, 2007, the Daegu District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 972,00,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 11% per annum from March 18, 2002 to August 29, 2007 and at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on December 6, 2007.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”) c.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to extend the prescription period of the instant claim.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of credit of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. At the time of filing a prior suit, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the Defendant’s domicile in the Defendant’s wife, which the Defendant does not actually reside; and (b) later, the original copy of the judgment in the prior suit was served on the Defendant’s address; and (c) thus, the Defendant could not know

The defendant did not dispute prior suit due to the above circumstances. However, the claim of this case is a claim based on illegal stock price manipulation, and its cause is null and void because it constitutes a conspiracy or false representation under Article 108 of the Civil Act or a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff's

B. If the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, the defendant's address is false or incomplete.

Even if the service is valid, the judgment becomes final and conclusive in the way of appeal period.