beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Korea Asset Management Corporation takes over the lawsuit of this case.
Reasons
1. We examine the legitimacy of the above part of the claim ex officio for the determination of the principal safety concerning the part concerning the claim for EL card payment.
On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party in favor of the other party in a lawsuit again files a lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of the other party in the previous lawsuit, the subsequent suit
However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period, which is the period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final judgment, has expired, the lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription has benefit
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's claim for the amount of extinctive prescription against the defendant against the defendant of the above Corporation transferred from the Korea Asset Management Corporation on May 13, 2005 (LG) was filed on August 16, 2007, and on August 16, 2007, "the defendant is not entitled to receive money from the plaintiff 15,11,414 won and 9,99,70 won among them, and the purport of all statements and arguments as to this case." The plaintiff's claim for the amount of extinctive prescription against the defendant of the above Corporation, which was transferred from the Korea Asset Management Corporation on May 13, 2005, the court below's determination that the period of extinctive prescription had been extended to 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment." The plaintiff's claim for the amount of extinctive prescription against the above defendant is not allowed to be extended to 13 months of the above claim period of extinctive prescription.
Therefore, the above claim part among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.
2. Pleadings are made in each description of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers) in the judgment on the merits of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Claim.