물품대금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding 500,000,000 won and damages for delay shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant.
1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
2. Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. The portion dismissed;
A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who received the final and conclusive judgment files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in which the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the lawsuit again, barring special circumstances, such as the lapse of the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the final and conclusive
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). B.
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the arguments, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the representative director of the defendant with respect to the amount of KRW 500,000,000 for the goods unpaid as Seoul Central District Court 20177 and damages for delay thereof, and was sentenced by the above court on July 5, 2012 to the judgment that "The defendant and C shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 500,000,000 and interest thereon calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 14, 2012 to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the preceding part of the claim in this case"). The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 24, 2012, and the part of the claim in this case for the preceding part in this case is included in the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case."
① Since the Plaintiff received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the part regarding the preceding claim of this case, the Plaintiff may institute a new suit only in the absence of special circumstances, such as interruption of extinctive prescription, and ② the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case including the part regarding the preceding claim of this case for interruption of extinctive prescription does not appear to have been filed. Even so, even if so, the period of extinctive prescription for the part regarding the preceding claim of this case is 10 years from the date the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act, and ③ the date of receipt of the complaint of this case.