beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 12,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 3, 2009 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the loan claim (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”) with the court, and the said lawsuit was initiated by service by public notice. On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 12,00,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 3, 2009 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment was finalized on December 29, 2009.
B. On January 14, 2002, the cause of the instant judgment is that “the Plaintiff lent KRW 12 million to the Defendant on January 14, 2002,” and the Defendant, on January 14, 2002, prepared and delivered a loan certificate (Evidence A2) that borrowed KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. Inasmuch as the judgment of a new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, even in cases where a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is exceptionally allowed due to special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, etc., the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.
(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340 Decided April 11, 2013). B.
As to the instant case, since it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s interruption of prescription is necessary for the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the instant judgment, the instant lawsuit has interest in the lawsuit, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 3, 2009 to the date of full payment.
C. As to the defendant's assertion and judgment 1, the defendant did not borrow the above KRW 12 million from the plaintiff. The plaintiff knew of the defendant's address at the time of filing the previous lawsuit.