beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant to the Seoul Southern District Court 2008 tea10846, and received the payment order on July 30, 2008. The above payment order was finalized on October 21, 2008.
2. Since a judgment in favor of the court rendered ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is recognized to collect KRW 32 million from the Defendant, based on the claim established in the above payment order from the Defendant around 2018.
The statute of limitations is interrupted due to seizure and new progress from the time when the cause for interruption ceases to exist. In light of the fact that the execution agency’s disposal of the debtor’s property by means of final and conclusive judgment or execution title is the first stage of compulsory execution that prohibits the debtor’s property by the execution of monetary claims, seizure is deemed to have become effective upon the termination of compulsory execution, and the cause for interruption thereof is terminated. Therefore, the statute of limitations of the above claim is again to run from the time when the plaintiff
Therefore, since the extinctive prescription of the above bonds was interrupted in around 2018, it is difficult to view that the extinctive prescription of the above bonds was imminent as of the date of closing the argument in this case.
In addition, there are special circumstances to recognize the benefit of lawsuits for the extension of prescription.