beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 140,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 30% per annum from April 20, 2007 to November 12, 2019.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for loans with the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch 2007Gahap937, Dec. 21, 2007. The above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 140 million won with interest of 30% per annum from April 20, 2007 to the day of full payment" and the Busan High Court (2008Na1965) which is the appellate court, which appealed appealed against the defendant on Oct. 22, 2008. The above judgment can be acknowledged as it becomes final and conclusive on Nov. 15, 2008 (hereinafter "the preceding judgment of this case").
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. In a case where the party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party in favor of the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive judgment, again files a lawsuit against the other party in the previous lawsuit identical to that of the previous final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party in the previous lawsuit, barring any special circumstance, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987; 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). This is to recognize the benefit of the protection of rights in light of res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment where a subsequent suit is filed in the same state where ten (10) years have not elapsed since the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party becomes final and conclusive, and the ten (10) years have not elapsed yet. However, the benefit of the subsequent suit is recognized, as there is a need for interruption of prescription if the period is uncertain.
Meanwhile, the judgment of a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription cannot conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit.