양수금
1. Of the instant lawsuits, “24,518,204 won and KRW 5,463,360 among the instant lawsuits, and among them, from April 7, 2017.
1. The facts constituting the grounds for the attachment of the underlying facts may be recognized either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap 1-4 (including branch numbers if there is a serial number) by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings.
2. Determination as to the unlawful part of the instant lawsuit
A. In a case where a party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of him/her ex officio has res judicata effect in a final and conclusive judgment, files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of him/her, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). B.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 5-3, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.") filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gaso90965, Jun. 18, 2013, "Defendant A and Eul shall pay to the plaintiff (referring to Seoul Guarantee Insurance) 7,398,585 won and 5,463,360 won with interest of 19% per annum from August 23, 1999 to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.") assigned the above claim for reimbursement to the plaintiff on June 28, 2013, and notified the defendants of the claim payment through delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff was entitled to the above claim against the defendant as the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (3).
According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription period of the above claim becomes final and conclusive by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gaso90965.