물품대금
1. The defendant shall pay 23,006,300 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 22, 2005 to the day of complete payment.
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price claim (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”) with the Daegu District Court 2005Kadan24841, and the above court rendered a judgment on May 18, 2005 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,006,300 and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 22, 2005 to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case around February 9, 2015 for the extension of the prescription period of claims based on the prior lawsuit.”
2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the plaintiff did not bear an obligation against the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's claim is not a claim against the defendant.
However, there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, even if a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.
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 extinguish the res judicata. This does not change on the ground that the service of the copy, original copy, etc. of the previous suit by means of service by public notice was not possible for the Defendant to bring an action against the previous suit due to a cause not attributable to him.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). The Defendant did not submit a written reply despite being served with copies of the complaint in the preceding lawsuit, and the Defendant was given a written judgment by non-drawing.