(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단131664

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단131664

양수금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On September 24, 1997, the plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 30 million to the defendant under the joint and several guarantee of the non-party B and C, the due date for repayment of the loan of the household, until September 24, 1999, at the interest rate of 12.5% per annum, and at the interest rate of delay damages rate of 18% per annum. On March 23, 2005, the plaintiff transferred all the claims for the above principal and interest of the loan to the plaintiff and the same year.

4. Around 22. Around August 17, 2016, the Defendant completed the notification of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not repay the principal amount of KRW 29,91,887 as of August 17, 2016, total of KRW 121,621,390 as of KRW 91,629,50.

In the instant case claiming the payment of the acquisition amount against the Defendant, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant on October 18, 2006 against the Defendant for the claim for the acquisition amount under the Gangwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Office 2006Kadan17009, and on January 17, 2007, “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 67,917,013 and 29,991,87% per annum from August 20, 2006 to the day of full payment,” and it is recognized that the said judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 13, 2007, since the subject matter of the instant lawsuit is the same as the subject matter of the said judgment of the court of Gangwon branch branch court, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the said judgment.

Of course, there exist exceptional cases where a new lawsuit is exceptionally permitted due to special circumstances, such as interruption of extinctive prescription. However, in this case, the extinctive prescription of a claim acquired by transfer is completed around April 13, 2017 with ten years prior to the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive. As of the date of closing of argument, as long as the period exceeding five months remains until the date when the above extinctive prescription expires, there is no entitlement to file a new lawsuit

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.10.07 2016가단10017

-서울서부지방법원 2017.12.12 2017가단17873

-서울서부지방법원 2020.5.15. 선고 2019가단270838 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.28 2017나35117

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단5232845