보증채무금
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. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s trade name is “D Co., Ltd..” On October 23, 2002, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,000 to C at an annual interest rate of 12.9% per annum, delay damages rate of 19% per annum, and October 23, 2003 due date. The Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff.
B. On March 14, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and the Defendant (Seoul District Court 2008Gada100375) with respect to the above loans, and on September 23, 2008, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that “C and the Defendant jointly pay the amount of KRW 10,768,401 as well as KRW 8,99,969 as to KRW 19% per annum from March 10, 2008 to August 22, 2008, and KRW 20% per annum as to KRW 8,99,969 as to KRW” (hereinafter “prior judgment”).
The preceding ruling became final and conclusive on October 21, 2008.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,768,401 won for joint and several sureties debt amounting to 10,768,401 won and 8,99,969 won among them, 19% per annum from March 10, 2008 to August 22, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant signed the loan transaction agreement as a joint and several surety and did not jointly and severally guarantee C’s above loan obligations against the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, and in exceptional circumstances such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, a new suit is exceptionally allowed. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit can claim the established right.