(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.23 2018가단5161760

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.23 2018가단5161760

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 151,214,053 as well as KRW 42,662,407 among them, from July 3, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in the statement in Gap 1 through 8 as to the plaintiff's claim, the facts constituting the ground for the annexed claim can be acknowledged (However, the creditor is deemed the plaintiff, the debtor is deemed the defendant), and the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount specified in

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The 12 card and card loan obligations asserted by the Plaintiff were in arrears since March 5, 2003, and the extinctive prescription period has already expired on March 4, 2008.

B. 1) The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment extends to any means of attack and defense that the parties have asserted or could have asserted before the closing of argument in the previous suit. However, in a case where there is a change in circumstances inconsistent with the judgment in the previous suit due to a new cause that occurred after the closing of argument, res judicata effect is interrupted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da222149, Aug. 30, 2016). 2) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entry in Gap 8, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, who filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order seeking a payment of takeover money with the Suwon District Court Decision 2008Da2249, Jun. 24, 2008, which was referred to the litigation procedure with the Suwon District Court 2008Da57070, which was served by public notice to the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 3, 2008.

The Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription is merely a ground that the Plaintiff could have asserted as a means of attack and defense in the lawsuit claiming transfer money (2008da57070) that was referred to the litigation procedure after the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as it goes against the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment in a lawsuit claiming the above amount of takeover.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.

참조판례

-대법원 2016. 8. 30. 선고 2016다222149 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.12.06 2019나2038565

-수원지방법원 2021.04.15 2020나83911

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.02.08 2017가단2086

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.28 2015가단5199771

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.10 2018가단5047543