시효중단
1. In the case of Suwon District Court Branch 2009Gahap1695 decided Dec. 4, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Woo”) between the above parties.
According to the purport of Gap 1 and 2 evidence and the whole arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this court 2009Gahap1695 (e.g., damages) on December 4, 2009 by filing a lawsuit against the defendant, and "the defendant was sentenced to five percent per annum from October 1, 2008 to July 15, 2009, and twenty percent per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The above judgment was finalized on December 24, 2009, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on December 5, 2019, which is ten years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of claims based on the above final judgment.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation that there exists a judicial claim on the above claim in order to interrupt the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above judgment is reasonable, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the above final and conclusive judgment is null and void by means of litigation fraud, such as fabrication of evidence and perjury on the part of the Plaintiff. However, as in the instant case, where a subsequent suit is filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit, the judgment of the previous suit shall not conflict with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit. As such, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right have been satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise
Therefore, this Court Decision 2009Gahap1695 Decided December 4, 2009 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirms that there had been the filing of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment in the damages claim case (former). It is so decided as per Disposition.