1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 25,000,000 and as to the Defendant D from May 1, 2001 to May 19, 2005.

1. The plaintiff's claim indication ① The plaintiff's loan 25 million won and damages for delay against the defendant Eul (the delivery date of a copy of complaint) ② The defendant C: (1) on March 1, 2000 (the delivery date of a copy of complaint). The defendant D: (2) on March 1, 2000 (the delivery date of a copy of complaint) the plaintiff's debt guarantee (the delivery date of a copy of complaint), the plaintiff filed the following claims, and was finally affirmed by the Seoul Northern District Court (the Seoul Northern District Court 2005Da14233) on January 11, 2006 (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The above judgment became final and conclusive.

The plaintiff shall seek a judgment, such as the purport of the claim, in order to extend the prescription period of the above judgment.

2. Determination as to Defendant D

A. The defendant's assertion is under trial by filing an application for bankruptcy immunity with the court, and the law at the time of the judgment of this case is not well-founded and thus, it is alleged that the law has been terminated as non-litigation.

B. (1) The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since litigation proceedings are interrupted or the plaintiff's claim is rejected solely on the ground that the bankruptcy and exemption application was filed.

(2) In special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the judgment that became final and conclusive, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.

Therefore, in order to dispute the right relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the Defendant should first file an appeal for a lawful completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit, thereby extinguishing the res judicata. Even if the original of the judgment in the previous suit was served by service by public notice, it cannot be viewed as a case where the Defendant could not bring an action against the previous suit due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11340 Decided April 11, 2013