물품대금(소멸시효연장을 위한)
In the Incheon District Court Decision 2009Kadan63884 case, the Reconciliation Recommendation decision was made on December 11, 2009.
In the case of the Incheon District Court Decision 2009Kadan6384 decided on December 11, 2009, the decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) was made and confirmed around that time. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 10, 2019 for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case. Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of the filing of the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case is with merit and the benefit of confirmation is recognized.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, around April 16, 2016, the Defendants made an agreement (Evidence B No. 1) that they would make the remainder of the obligations upon the repayment of the amount of KRW 20 million out of the amount of claims based on the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case, and paid all the amount of KRW 20 million in accordance with the said agreement. Thus, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the claims based on the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case were extinguished.
As in the instant lawsuit, the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking the interruption of extinctive prescription is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to a specific claim for which judgment has become final and conclusive, with the exclusion of the substantive existence and scope of a claim, and the judgment does not have the legal effect other than the interruption of extinctive prescription, and thus, there is no need to deliberate on the existence of a claim including the completion of extinctive prescription and the substantive legal relationship such as the scope of a claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). As such, the aforementioned Defendants
(However, the defendants, regardless of the confirmation of the lawsuit in this case, may file a lawsuit of demurrer and dispute the existence of the claim. 3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified.