beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 45,00,000 and KRW 15,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 from December 6, 1998.
Reasons
Judgment on the Grounds of Claim
A. Although there is no dispute between the parties or comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1's statement and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this court (Korean Government District Court Decision 2008Da66870). The court affirmed the lawsuit in this case on March 18, 2009, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 45 million won and 15 million won among them, 30 million won from December 6, 1998, 1998, and 20% interest per annum from June 28, 1999 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive at that time, and the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim of this case.
B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 45,00,000 won and 15,000,000 won out of the above amount, as the Plaintiff seeks, 20% per annum from June 28, 1999 to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from the following day to May 31, 2019; and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not have any personal borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the preceding judgment of this case was conducted through service by public notice, and the defendant did not have an opportunity to properly dispute the defendant, so the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
Judgment
In special circumstances, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, the judgment of a new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, even if a new suit is exceptionally allowed based on the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit satisfies the requirements for claiming the established right.