beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant concluded a loan transaction agreement with each financial institution listed in the separate sheet of claim specification; and (b) lost the benefit of the due date after receiving a loan; and (c) on July 13, 2015, the interest unpaid as of July 13, 2015 is indicated in the loan balance and the interest column.
On the other hand, each of the above financial institutions transferred each of the above loans and accrued interest to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 17% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of 59,521,974 won and the balance of each of the above loans and the interest accrued therefrom, in total, 173,751,481 won and the balance of the loans.
2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit
A. Since a favorable judgment in favor of a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party to the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to that in the previous suit in favor of the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has run
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). B.
Attached Form
(1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the records Nos. 10, 13, and No. 14-1, 2, and 3 as to the claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 as indicated in the credit list Nos. 10, 13, and 14-1, 2, and 3, as a whole, in the case of the claim No. 6 in the separate sheet No. 1, an order of payment (Seoul Central District Court 2012, No. 14506, Sept. 25, 2012) against the defendant around August 2012. The above order of payment was finalized as it was, and ② the separate sheet No. 2.