beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.11.14 2019나1883

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the basic facts, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff filed an order for compensation with the Busan District Court 2008No2215 against the defendant, which was pending in the criminal trial of 2008No2215, and issued a compensation order on July 25, 2008, stating that "the defendant shall pay the compensation orderer KRW 10,000,000 to the compensation orderer," and the above compensation order was finalized on August 2, 2008.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order (the first instance court of this case) on June 28, 2018 for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim established under the above compensation order is apparent in the record.

2. According to the above facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff money for the compensation order finalized by the plaintiff. Since the lawsuit in this case was filed for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above compensation order, there is a benefit of lawsuit as re-litigation for interruption of prescription.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 and damages for delay.

3. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that there was no fact that 10,000,000 won had been raised from the plaintiff.

However, even if the civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in the criminal trial, the fact that the criminal trial was convicted of the same facts is a sufficient evidence in the civil trial. Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the opposing facts are not satisfied unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2391, 23407 delivered on February 27, 1990 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2391, 23407). Each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 cannot be deemed as having any special circumstance to support the facts found guilty in a criminal trial. Thus, the defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.

The first instance court.