어음금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.
the purport and purpose of the claim;
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of this case:
A. On March 5, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of bills (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da 78489, hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”). The Defendant did not submit a written answer even after receiving a written complaint on May 24, 2009.
B. On July 22, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment with no content in which “the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 and delayed damages therefrom” was affirmed on August 13, 2009. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 2009.
(c)
On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of bills (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019Da33072, hereinafter referred to as “the lawsuit”). The Defendant submitted a written response, and argued the termination of the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of bills.
(d)
On December 5, 2019, the lower court rendered a judgment that paid KRW 150,000,000 and delayed damages therefrom to the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the lower court cannot re-examine the grounds that occurred prior to the day when the judgment in the prior suit was rendered, in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.
E. On December 16, 2019, the Defendant appealed in the judgment subject to a retrial, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by withdrawing an appeal on the 28th of the same month.
F. On January 4, 2020, the Defendant had a record of re-examination under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.
In this case, the suit of this case was filed.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant’s argument that the judgment subject to a retrial is erroneous by omitting a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment (Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act). The Defendant leased D private letter or shop to the Plaintiff around 2007, and the real amount of KRW 150,000,000 cited in the judgment subject to a retrial is the lease deposit.
In the process of selling D Ma Ma to E in 2008, the Defendant sells D Ma.