양수금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 2008Gau21046, seeking the payment of loans under the loan agreement concluded on September 7, 2004, and won the lawsuit. The Plaintiff received a claim from C Co., Ltd. based on the said final judgment around March 31, 2016.
Inasmuch as the enforcement procedure of the case on the seizure and collection order of the Daegu District Court Branch 2009Tari 1041, which was based on the above final judgment, is terminated, the prescription of claims based on the above final judgment is new, the instant lawsuit was instituted for the interruption of prescription of claims based on the above final judgment
2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(1) As to the interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of extinctive prescription, which has lapsed until interruption, is not included in the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Meanwhile, in the event the interruption of prescription is interrupted, the interruption of prescription by the seizure among the interruption of extinctive prescription can be deemed to have expired when the seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is terminated.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840 Decided April 28, 2017). According to the respective statements in subparagraphs 5 and 6 of Articles 5 and 208, the judgment against the Defendant of C Co., Ltd. became final and conclusive around November 5, 2008, and C Co., Ltd’s Pohang Port Branch of the Daegu District Court around March 25, 2009, under the said final and conclusive judgment, the Daegu District Court Branch of 2009TB1041.