양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 141,211,727 and KRW 30,000 among them, from November 1, 2006 to the day of full payment.
1. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and damages for delay as stated in the separate sheet (if there are special circumstances, such as "creditor" shall be deemed "Plaintiff" and "debtor" shall be deemed "Defendant").
2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's argument that "the claim of this case does not exist and the extinctive prescription has expired in light of the fact that a new loan is not made in the state of failing to repay the existing loan, etc."
In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it can be found that there has been a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2006Da453522, 2007Gais209437) as to each of the claims of this case, and in exceptional cases such as the interruption of prescription, inasmuch as the judgment of a new suit does not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all of the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is not permissible against the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit, and is therefore groundless.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.