대여금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party of the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). We examine the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff applied for a payment order against the defendant for a loan payment order as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009 tea106706, and received payment order on October 16, 2009, and it can be acknowledged that it became final and conclusive on November 13, 2009.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.
However, the Plaintiff asserted at the instant complaint that part of the claims under the above payment order was repaid by the Defendant from December 2, 2009 to November 12, 2011. Even in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was an approval of the obligation, which is a ground for the interruption of prescription after the above payment order became final and conclusive, and even if the prescription is again calculated based on November 13, 201, which is the date following the last payment date, it cannot be deemed that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired as of the date of the closing of argument in this case.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.
2. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.