beta
Text
1. The judgment on the loan case between the plaintiff and the defendant Jeonju District Court 2009Kadan16211 was based.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch, and the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 18,113,000 won with 5% per annum from April 10, 2004 to June 9, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the preceding judgment of this case”). The preceding judgment of this case became final and conclusive on July 21, 2010.
B. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the foregoing prior judgment.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible in the form of seeking confirmation only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” as a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription against a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, other than a performance suit. An obligee may select and file a suit that is more suitable for one’s own situation and needs among the two types of lawsuits.
(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of the statute of limitations of claims against the Defendant based on the instant prior judgment that became final and conclusive.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff, after the judgment of this case, obtained the satisfaction of certain claims through the Defendant’s order for the collection of seizure and collection of the Defendant’s claims after the judgment of this case, that part of the claim ought to be dismissed. (2) The subject matter of a new form of litigation seeking confirmation is determined through a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to the specific claim for which judgment