구상금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5:
A. On July 23, 1997, the Plaintiff entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation by the government filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for reimbursement of damages against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant paid the insurance money to the victims of death or injury caused by a traffic accident caused by the Defendant’s driving of a vehicle not covered by liability insurance. On July 5, 2002, the above court rendered a judgment on July 5, 2002 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 31,225,000 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from February 27, 1998 to November 24, 200, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “prior judgment”). The previous judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
B. After May 30, 2006, the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000 out of the amount of indemnity based on the preceding judgment.
C. Meanwhile, based on the prior judgment finalized on November 4, 2008, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant’s deposit claims against the Gwangju District Court, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, the High Financial Cooperative Federation, the Heal Agricultural Cooperative, the Healyang Agricultural Cooperative, and the Republic of Korea with a collection order as to the deposit claims against the Defendant. On November 26, 2008, the Plaintiff collected KRW 3,295,000 from Goi Agricultural Cooperative.
On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity based on the preceding judgment.
2. We examine ex officio whether the instant lawsuit is lawful.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in case where the party against the other party to the previous suit files a lawsuit identical to the previous suit in which a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, and