beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As regards Defendant A’s KRW 144,010,590 and KRW 5,000 among them, Defendant A’s KRW 5,00,000 from February 2, 2002 to KRW 5,00,00.
Reasons
1. Defendant A;
A. The facts as stated in the separate sheet of claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in the separate sheet of No. 1-1-2 and No. 2 by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.
Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in Section 1(a) of the Disposition, and the lawsuit of this case filed for the purpose of extension of prescription due to the excessive completion of extinctive prescription after the judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive.
B. As to this, Defendant A asserts to the effect that, around August 31, 1998, the Plaintiff transferred the real estate and the claim amounting to approximately KRW 6 billion, Defendant A’s ownership, to the Plaintiff, to the effect that all obligations against the Plaintiff, including the claim amount, were extinguished.
In light of the above, there is no evidence to acknowledge the assertion. Furthermore, according to the above evidence, it can be known that Defendant A and B presented the same argument in the previous final judgment case, but did not accept the relevant evidence. Any assertion or defense arising from the grounds that a final judgment became final and conclusive prior to the date of closing argument in the same trial court is interrupted by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the contents of the final and conclusive judgment due to the same reason, and the court may not make a decision inconsistent with this Opinion.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da1338, Nov. 23, 1976). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.
C. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is justified.
2. Defendant B and C
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment following service by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);