beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;
2.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
Solomon mutual savings bank filed a lawsuit against the defendant in respect of the claim for the amount of money taken over by the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gaso2061593, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. The plaintiff received the claim based on the above final and conclusive judgment from Solomon mutual savings bank, and then filed the lawsuit in order to interrupt extinctive prescription.
(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1-2, No. 2-1, No. 3-1, and No. 6, a solomon mutual savings bank filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant for payment of the claim for the amount of transfer money as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gada2061593, Sept. 18, 2007; the above judgment became final and conclusive on Nov. 9, 2007; Solomon mutual savings bank transferred the above claim to the plaintiff on Apr. 10, 2009 and notified the defendant of the assignment of the claim on Dec. 2, 2009; and it is evident that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on Aug. 28, 2013.
A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is limited to the case where the ten-year extinctive prescription period is imminent in order to recognize the benefit of the lawsuit without going against the prohibition of double lawsuit. As seen earlier, the lawsuit filed by Solomon Mutual Savings Bank against the defendant was finalized on November 9, 2007, and the lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2013, and the ten-year extinctive prescription period was not imminent, and the lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2013, and the present extinctive prescription period is not imminent. Thus, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, namely, the part against which the plaintiff was lost, does not have the benefit of lawsuit.
3. In conclusion, the claim to which Solomon Mutual Savings Bank was transferred from the lawsuit of this case.