양수금
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, Jul. 19, 2018). According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, the period of extinctive prescription of a claim established in a payment order is extended to ten years even where the short-term extinctive prescription falls under the short-term extinctive prescription.
In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.
C A limited liability company against the Defendant on January 10, 206, upon receipt of a payment order seeking the payment of the acquisition amount from the Jinyang Branch of the District Court 2006Guj234, which became final and conclusive on January 17, 2006. The Plaintiff’s final transfer of the above claim against the Defendant on July 31, 2013, and the transfer of the execution clause was granted on December 4, 2013 upon receipt of the above payment order. The fact that the Plaintiff received the attachment of the claim against the Defendant on the basis of the above payment order and the collection order (which is the High Court Branch of the Government District Court 2013ta 16025) can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and the entire arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including serial numbers).
According to the above facts, the period of extinctive prescription was extended to ten years according to the determination of the above payment order, and the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the above seizure and collection order around December 4, 2013, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
However, the above seizure and collection order was cancelled.
There is no evidence to deem that the enforcement process has been completed.