1. The defendant shall pay 30 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from April 8, 2004 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 1998, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the above loan under the Suwon District Court 2004Kadan18008, and the above warden was served on the Defendant. On May 13, 2004, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million and the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 8, 2004 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the previous judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 1, 2004.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the instant previous judgment by Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na35744, and the said court rendered a judgment on November 5, 2015 that “the Defendant’s appeal shall be dismissed.” On this matter, the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da71450, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on March 10, 2016.

Grounds for recognition: A1-5, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. In light of the above, although the previous judgment of this case became final and conclusive and has res judicata effect, a new suit is exceptionally allowed as there are special circumstances in the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won based on the previous judgment of this case and 20% interest per annum from April 8, 2004 to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that since the defendant repaid all of the money borrowed from the plaintiff in cash and goods from 1999 to 199, all of the claims based on the previous judgment of this case were extinguished. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Furthermore, since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of a lawsuit, it is inconsistent with the existence of legal relations determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the method of attack and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the subsequent suit for the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the same parties.