logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.05.17 2016가단216870
양수금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,731,096 out of KRW 92,232,797 and the said KRW 20,731,096.

Reasons

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-1 of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, EL Card Co., Ltd., concluded a loan agreement with the defendant, and the defendant Eul jointly guaranteed the obligations owed by the defendant A under the above loan agreement, and the plaintiff acquired the claims against the defendants from EL Card Co., Ltd., and filed a lawsuit against the above defendants against the above defendants on Nov. 24, 2006 with the Busan District Court, and on Nov. 24, 2006, "the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 20,731,096 won with 25% interest per annum from Jun. 30, 2003 to the day of full payment, 205 won with 20,731,096 won per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on Dec. 22, 2006 (13584).

As to this, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff did not undergo consultation with the defendants in the process of taking over the claims against the defendants, and that since the claims had already been extinguished by prescription before the judgment was rendered, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

In the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's claim for takeover amount against the defendant in Busan District Court Decision 2006Da135884, Busan District Court Decision 2006Da13584, so long as the claim against the defendant against the defendant has been established, the lawsuit of this case brought for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the established claim cannot be reviewed again as to the existence of the assignment of claims, which is a legal requirement for the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit, and whether the claim has been extinguished or not. In order to dispute the legal relationship of the previous lawsuit in the subsequent suit, the defendants first have to extinguish the res judicata effect as to the final judgment of winning the previous suit.

arrow