시효중단확인의 소
1. The judgment of the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Gaz. 26639 Decided September 7, 2010 between the Plaintiff and G is based on the judgment of the award.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (2010 Ghana 26639) against the deceased G (hereinafter “the Deceased”) in this court, and was sentenced to the judgment that “G shall pay to the Plaintiff 9,174,194 won and 5,130,583 won per annum from March 25, 2010 to August 11, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the judgment was finalized on October 5, 2010.
B. The Deceased died on June 3, 2015, and the deceased’s heir is the Defendants.
【Ground of Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 1
2. As a subsequent suit for interruption of prescription as to the cause of a claim, a “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is allowed in the form of seeking confirmation only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim,” namely, a “judicial claim,” as a subsequent suit for interruption of prescription for a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit in addition to a performance suit, and an obligee may choose and file a suit that is more suitable for one’s situation
must be viewed.
The core of this new form of litigation is that the subject matter of the lawsuit is different from the subject matter of the lawsuit.
In other words, while the subject matter of a prior suit is in existence of a specific claim under the substantive law, the subject matter of a new form of lawsuit is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of prescription through a claim in a trial for interruption of prescription with respect to the specific claim for which a judgment has become final and conclusive, while the substantive existence and scope of the claim is excluded.
Since the judgment does not have the effect of the substantive law in addition to the interruption of prescription for the claim established by the judgment in a prior suit, there is no need to review the existence of the claim including the completion of prescription and the scope of substantive legal relations in the lawsuit.
The creditor has become final and conclusive as the cause of the claim, and the subsequent lawsuit is brought to interrupt the prescription of the claim.