beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 53,761,66 and KRW 29,875,720 among them, from September 28, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The facts in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 5 asserted by the plaintiff as the cause of the claim in this case can be acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statement No. 1 and No. 5.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from September 28, 2016 to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 53,761,66 of the principal and interest of KRW 29,875,720 among the principal and interest of KRW 53,761,66 of the first financial institution’s claim to the Plaintiff that was acquired by transfer of the claim by the financial institution (hereinafter “Tsung Fire”).
2. 피고의 주장에 대한 판단 피고는, 소외 B, 망 C의 꾐에 빠져 의료법인 D의 서류상 이사로 등재된 후 이 사건 채무를 부담하게 된 것이므로 원고의 청구가 부당하다는 취지로 다툰다.
However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the above judgment became final and conclusive around November 30, 2006 by filing a lawsuit claiming acquisition money against the defendant by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da368983, which is the transferor of the claim, and the judgment in favor of the defendant on November 30, 2006. The final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant has res judicata effect, and the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription can not re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010, etc.). Thus, insofar as the judgment in the prior suit became final and conclusive to have a claim for the takeover of Samsung Fire against the Defendant, insofar as the claim for the takeover of Samsung Fire exists in the previous suit, the transferee of the claim cannot re-examine the Defendant’s allegation in the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the Defendant’
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.