beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. Determination of previous litigations and judgments subject to a retrial
A. On June 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit (the first lawsuit) against the Defendant with the Jeonju District Court on December 23, 2014 and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim under the first instance court (the Jeonju District Court 2014NaNa127710). However, the Plaintiff appealed against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant paid the amount exceeding the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation, and that the appellate court (the Jeonju District Court 2015Na4699) dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the Defendant paid the amount exceeding the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation. Accordingly, the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 10, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal.
B. On June 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit (the second lawsuit) against the Defendant with the Jeonju District Court (the Jeonju District Court 2016Na24655) on May 20, 201, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in the first instance court (the Jeonju District Court 2016Na11632). However, the appellate court (the Jeonju District Court 2016Na1632) dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s loan claim against C was extinguished with the extension of the period of commercial extinctive prescription and the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligation was extinguished according to the nature of the father. The Plaintiff filed an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on May 21, 2017 by the Supreme Court (the first instance court 2017Da26317).
C. On June 1, 2010, the Plaintiff confirmed the judgment subject to a retrial: (a) lent KRW 5,500,000 to C on November 1, 2010 and annual interest rate of KRW 49%; and (b) filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Defendant with the Jeonju District Court on December 27, 2017 on the ground that the Defendant was jointly and severally guaranteed.