(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.04.17 2018가단4300

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.04.17 2018가단4300

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the payment of damages (Ycheon District Court Branch 2007Gadan16610). On September 18, 2007, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to each plaintiff 55,480,000 won and 13,500,000 won among them, from June 16, 2005, from September 27, 2005, from 31,980,000 won to 31,90,000 won, from December 1, 2005 to July 2, 2007, from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") that "the defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiff 13,50,000 won with 55% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and the judgment of this case was finalized as to the defendant 31,207.

B. On August 4, 2008, the Plaintiff, as the executive title of the instant judgment, was issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant first claim seizure and collection order”) with the incidental branch court of the Incheon District Court No. 2008TT 4834 with the Defendant B and the third debtor D organization as the enforcement title, and the said order was served on the Defendant B on October 3, 2008, and on August 7, 2008 with the third debtor D organization, respectively.

C. In the meantime, the Plaintiff, as the executive title of the instant judgment on July 18, 2018, was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the seizure and collection order”) under the Incheon District Court 2018TT No. 17693 by designating the debtor as the Defendant B, the garnishee E, etc. as the executive title, and the said order was served on the Defendant B, the garnishee E, etc. on July 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case was filed for the extension of the prescription period of the judgment of this case. We examine ex officio the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants.

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the relevant legal doctrine 1 has res judicata effect, a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2014.06.25 2013가단22605

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.10 2015나8747

-인천지방법원 2014.11.19 2014가합8277

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.17 2018나49446

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.09 2017가단9130