beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking the payment of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired from the new card company.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.
2. Determination as to the unlawful part of the instant lawsuit
A. In a case where a party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of him/her ex officio has res judicata effect in a final and conclusive judgment, files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of him/her, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). B.
In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap 3 and 10, the new card company (hereinafter "new card") entered into an agreement with the defendant credit card holders and issued the credit card to the defendant. On October 8, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a lawsuit seeking payment of the above credit card payment under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Na712055 and rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (the new card in this case) the amount of KRW 9,013,972 and the amount of KRW 8,646,546 per annum 29.9% per annum from March 18, 2010 to the day of full payment." The new card was finalized on November 11, 2010, and the new card was transferred to the plaintiff on June 21, 2013, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff received the above credit card payment from the plaintiff through the copy of the complaint of this case against the defendant.
According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription period of the above claim shall run anew from November 11, 2010, which became final and conclusive in the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da712055, 2000Gadan310890, and the ten-year prescription period as of the date of closing the argument in this case.