beta
Text
Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Na71865 Decided August 18, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a judgment of damages case.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages claim as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Ga District Court Decision 71865, and received a judgment in favor of the Defendant on August 18, 2010 as follows, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 11, 2010.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,77.34 US dollars and 25% interest per annum from October 27, 2007 to the day of full payment. (B) The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on July 16, 2020, which was 10 years after the judgment of the previous suit became final and conclusive, for the ten-year prescription period.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of this case for the extension of prescription period of a claim to be extinguished by the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit.
The claim for confirmation of the existence of a lawsuit in this case is permissible as a claim for the interruption of prescription of a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, and the ten-year lapse of prescription period, which is the extinction of a claim established by a final judgment in a prior suit, has been recognized. Therefore, there is benefit in a lawsuit.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s obligation recognized in the judgment in a prior suit cannot be recognized as a lawsuit instituted only on the basis of the contract without the original storage.
However, the subject matter of the instant suit is not based on the substantive existence and scope of the claim, but is limited to seeking a trial claim for interruption of prescription with respect to specific claims for which judgment has become final and conclusive.
In this lawsuit, it is not necessary to examine the existence and scope of the claim, and it is only necessary to prove that the judgment of the previous suit became final and conclusive as the cause of the claim, and that the lawsuit was instituted after the interruption of prescription of the claim, and the debtor has the substantive reasons before and after the judgment of the previous suit becomes final and conclusive.