약속어음금
1. The part against Defendant D among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. Defendant C’s KRW 153,353,321 and 73.
1. Defendant C’s portion
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Defendant D’s portion
A. (1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant D seeking the payment of a promissory note amount under Busan District Court Decision 2009Da145813, and the above warden was served by means of service by public notice to the above defendant.
On June 30, 2010, the above court rendered a ruling that "the above defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 153,353,321 won and 73,353,321 won from June 29, 198, 80,000 won per annum from July 6, 1998 to June 30, 199, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above ruling became final and conclusive on July 20, 2010.
(2) On August 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription of the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit.
(3) On September 18, 2019, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with respect to the instant judgment by Busan District Court Decision 2019Na4509, and the said court rendered a judgment that “the appeal of the above Defendant is dismissed” on January 8, 2020, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap No. 4-5, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading
B. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the pertinent lawsuit has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive judgment regarding the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, in cases where the relevant party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the previous suit in favor of the said party
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). Examining the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff is the instant case.