양수금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.
3...
1. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant has res judicata effect, where the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant has been rendered files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of the defendant, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the
However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final judgment has expired, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). According to each of the evidence Nos. 12, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in this case, Eul borrowed KRW 3 million from a new card company (hereinafter "new card") around June 2003 at a rate of 24% per annum. The defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt, ② The new card was filed against the defendant to seek the payment of the above joint and several liability (Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Da12573, hereinafter "the previous lawsuit in this case"), and the judgment was rendered a favorable judgment on April 20, 201, and the judgment was received on May 14, 2010 from the new card company (hereinafter "new card") and notified the fact that the plaintiff was delegated to the new card transfer on June 21, 201. < Amended by Act No. 10283, Mar. 21, 2013>
Since res judicata is limited to a third party who succeeds to the status of the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit, after the closing of argument, it also extends to the plaintiff who succeeds to the status of the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit, against
The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant identical to the previous suit of this case remains for about four years, and it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period of the claim against the defendant remains for the defendant. Thus, it cannot be said that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit in protecting the rights.
2. Conclusion.