beta
Text
1. The Defendant is jointly and severally and severally with the Plaintiff as to KRW 46,319,772 and KRW 15,212,914, as to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The allegations and judgment of the parties
(a) as shown in the reasons for the application to indicate the claim;
(However, the creditor's "the plaintiff and the debtor 2." are deemed to be "the defendant," and the payment order for B was finalized on the debtor 1.B. 【The grounds for recognition / [the purport of each entry and the whole argument in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3]
B. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that there is no fact that the Defendant did not know of B, which is the primary debtor, and that there is no fact that the said joint and several liability was harmed. 2) Even in a case where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the judgment exceptionally finalized due to special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re
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, and thus, the res judicata should be extinguished. This does not change on the ground that the service of the copy of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment, etc. by service by public notice was not possible for the Defendant to bring an action against the previous suit.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and B for the acquisition amount of each of the instant claims against the Defendant and B on September 13, 2006, and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 13, 2006 can be recognized as having become final and conclusive at that time. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have the obligation to perform the instant loan obligations cannot be accepted as against the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit, and thus, cannot be accepted.
2. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.