약속어음금
1. The defendant shall pay 70 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from February 24, 2005 to the day of complete payment.
In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 9, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this court as to the claim for promissory notes amounting to KRW 2005da40462, Jul. 26, 2005, and this court rendered a judgment by public notice stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 24, 2005 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the defendant filed an appeal for full payment with the court 2015Na4640, May 25, 2016, but the appeal for full payment was dismissed.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 70 million won with 20% interest per annum from February 24, 2005 to the day of full payment.
As to this, the defendant asserts that there is no fact that the plaintiff issued a promissory note, so that the plaintiff cannot respond to the claim.
Even in cases where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter as a final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive exceptionally due to special circumstances, such as a case by examining the case, interruption of prescription, etc., the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right
Therefore, in order to dispute the right relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the Defendant should first file an appeal for a lawful completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the res judicata should be extinguished. This does not change on the ground that the service of the copy of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment, etc. by service by public notice was not possible for the Defendant to bring an action against the previous suit.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). Accordingly, this Court’s final and conclusive judgment in the instant case No. 2005Da40462, supra.