대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000 and the interest thereon from May 25, 2008 to the day of complete payment.
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 90 million from the loan to the defendant C on December 2, 1996, and the defendant B (the defendant's mother) filed a lawsuit seeking joint and several liability (this Court Decision 2007Da68074, hereinafter "the prior suit case") on July 24, 1997 on the ground that joint and several liability for the above loan was jointly and severally guaranteed, and the prior suit case was conducted by service by publication to the defendants, and the prior suit case was concluded on August 26, 2008 after the pleadings were concluded on September 2, 2008, and confirmed the facts that became final and conclusive around that time. The plaintiff also filed the lawsuit of this case on August 20, 2018 for the purpose of extending the prescription period of the above judgment (hereinafter "the final judgment of this case").
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the money stated in the Disposition No. 1 to the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant C received the complaint of the previous suit on November 27, 2007, and Defendant C’s loan obligation had already expired on December 1, 2006 (the expiration of ten years from December 2, 1996, the lease date) (the expiration of ten years from December 2, 1996). (2) Defendant B did not have jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s debt on July 24, 1997, and was residing in the United States from May 10, 2004 to May 31, 2013, but did not know of the previous suit.
B. In special circumstances, such as interruption of extinctive prescription, where a new suit based on the same subject matter of a lawsuit is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.
Therefore, the defendant's right to the previous suit is confirmed in the subsequent suit.