소멸시효중단을위한 확인
1. The case involving loans, etc. between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, etc. by Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007Gahap9467 Decided September 23, 2009.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and D filed a lawsuit against the Defendants and E Company to seek loans, etc., and the judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Gahap9467 delivered on September 23, 2009; hereinafter “prior judgment”) was rendered by the following: “The Defendants jointly and severally filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (and D) and Defendant B with respect to each of the KRW 180,000,000 from October 11, 2005 to November 17, 2007; Defendant C shall pay 6% per annum from October 11, 2005 to December 26, 2007; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”
B. The Defendants did not appeal against the prior judgment and the prior judgment against the Defendants became final and conclusive on October 23, 2009.
C. On September 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription based on the preceding judgment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit for the confirmation of this case in order to seek the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the preceding judgment, the Defendants asserted that ① all amount of the claim of this case was repaid, and ② extinctive prescription was completed.
B. According to the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018, a lawsuit seeking the interruption of extinctive prescription, such as this case, is not effective under the substantive law in addition to the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a prior judgment. As such, a lawsuit seeking the interruption of extinctive prescription, such as this case, cannot be deliberated on the existence of a claim including the completion of extinctive prescription and substantive legal relations such as the scope
Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be examined in this lawsuit, and is therefore groundless.
In accordance with the Majority Opinion of the foregoing 2015Da232316, the court of the subsequent suit shall deliberate and decide on the grounds that occurred after the closing of argument in the prior suit in the event a confirmation suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription is instituted.