양수금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
(a) 31,054,973 Won;
(b)For 71,346,627 won and 11,058,134 won;
1. As indicated in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff has the claim against the Defendants as shown in the attached Form, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants by the Gwangju District Court 2004Gahap10345 and rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on January 28, 2005, and the facts that the judgment became final and conclusive around that time do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in subparagraphs A and 4 (including the number of pages).
Meanwhile, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the same amount of takeover on January 2, 2015 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the foregoing final judgment is obvious in this court.
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion
A. Defendant B asserts to the effect that, since the above Defendant did not conclude a joint and several guarantee contract with the former Japanese bank, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim that he acquired the above joint and several guarantee claim.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, the parties cannot bring a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be exceptionally allowed. In such a case, the judgment in favor of a new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). In light of such legal doctrine, Defendant B’s aforementioned assertion is the purport of re-convening the Plaintiff’s right established in the previous final and conclusive judgment, and thus, cannot be accepted.
B. Defendant B asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer money was extinguished by prescription.
Article 165 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "The period of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment shall be ten years, even if it falls under the short-term extinctive prescription."