(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.06.21 2019가단4536

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.06.21 2019가단4536

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 31, 2007 to December 16, 2008.

Reasons

1. Assertion and determination

A. In full view of the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this court (Seoul Western District Court 2008Da100759). The court held on February 6, 2009 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from October 31, 2007 to December 16, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive at that time, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case to extend the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment of this case."

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 35,00,000 won with 5% per annum from October 31, 2007 to December 16, 2008, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the defendant did not have borrowed money individually from the plaintiff, and the preceding judgment of this case was conducted through the work delivery procedure, and the defendant did not have the opportunity to dispute properly, so the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

In special circumstances, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, 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 is allowed based on the same subject-matter of a lawsuit as the judgment that became final and conclusive exceptionally, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements to claim the established right have been satisfied.

Therefore, in order to dispute the legal relationship of the previous suit in the latter suit, the defendant first won the previous suit.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.08.30 2017가단5351

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.17 2018가단5041

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.15 2017가단5212333

-인천지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나6037

-의정부지방법원 2019.08.22 2019가단2704