약정금
The defendant paid KRW 78,00,000 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 1, 2003 to October 4, 2010.
In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the Seoul Central District Court 2010Da380027, Nov. 30, 2010, and received a favorable judgment from the above court that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 78,000,000 won per annum from February 1, 2003 to October 4, 2010, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment is recognized to have become final and conclusive on December 2010, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of ten years of extinctive prescription of claims under the above judgment is clear in the record.
According to these facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 78,00,000 won as stated in the above judgment, i.e., 5% per annum from February 1, 2003 to October 4, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
The defendant asserts that a loan certificate, which was the basis of the preceding judgment, has no effect since it was drafted by the plaintiff's coercion.
On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional circumstances such as the interruption of prescription, a new suit is allowed.
In such a case, 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 cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). The instant case raised for the interruption of extinctive prescription, inasmuch as the existence of a claim for the agreed amount was confirmed in a lawsuit claiming the agreed amount filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court).