beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
Where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party institutes a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of a final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful because there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit in the lawsuit
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987; 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Moreover, a final and conclusive payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since a final and conclusive judgment has its effect on a successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings (see, e.g., Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), a person who succeeds to the legal relationship of a subject matter of a lawsuit after the closing of pleadings or the final and conclusive order for payment becomes final and conclusive
However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, ① A applied for a payment order against the Defendant as the Daegu District Court 2002 tea13771 and the Defendant received the payment order from the court on June 20, 2002 from B to pay KRW 41 million and damages for delay from September 14, 2002 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) and confirmed as of September 28, 2002, ② B received reimbursement of KRW 550,000 from the Defendant on November 1, 201, and KRW 400,000 from February 2, 2014; ③ thereafter, B transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff on November 21, 2016, and the Defendant was notified on November 21, 2016, and ④ thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant 1 who acquired the loan claims against each of the Defendant on December 1, 2016.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff is a successor to the loan bond under the relevant payment order after the payment order of this case became final and conclusive.