(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나37066

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나37066

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 25, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2005Da364854) against the co-defendant C of the first instance trial and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial claiming the joint and several liability for the Defendant, and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 30, 2006. The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2006.

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment.” In the above lawsuit, the defendant was served with a copy of the complaint on March 15, 2006 in Seongbuk-gu Seoul E, and the above service place is the domicile of the defendant moving-in as of January 2, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 26, 2016 for the extension of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the prior judgment of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 76,40,000 won to the joint defendant B and C of the first instance trial and the amount of 5% per annum from February 17, 2004 to March 15, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion is true that the defendant prepared Gap evidence 2 (joint guarantee), but the plaintiff had no choice but to find at the home and request it to do so at the latest night. Thus, the defendant asserts to the purport that the burden of joint and several guarantee liability is unreasonable.

However, in the event that a final judgment has become final and conclusive, any assertion or defense arising from the grounds that could have occurred and submitted prior to the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court is excluded by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, it is not allowed for the parties to make new arguments contrary to the contents of the final and conclusive judgment on such grounds. The prior judgment of this case

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.12 2017가단986

-대법원 1988. 9. 27. 선고 88다3116 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.10 2015가단55647

-서울고등법원 2016.06.24 2015누64017

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.20 2017나51312