대여금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding 15,000,000 won and interest for delay shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant.
1. Indication of claim: Lawsuit for an extension of prescription period in each judgment on loans extended by the Daegu District Court Decision 2006Gadan77132, and vice-branch of the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Gau13950; and
2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. We examine ex officio the dismissed portion of the instant lawsuit as to the legitimacy of the part demanding the payment of KRW 15,00,000 among the instant lawsuit and interest in arrears thereof (the part demanding the extension of the statute of limitations of the loans rendered by the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Gau13950).
The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, but again brought a lawsuit for the extension of prescription.
However, in a case where a final and conclusive judgment has been rendered, there is no interest in the lawsuit to bring an identical suit, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that enforcement is practically difficult due to excessive ten-year extinctive prescription period for the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, the judgment on the loan case cited by the Plaintiff is rendered on September 24, 2014 and becomes final and conclusive around that time, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant has yet to go beyond the extinctive prescription period. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.