(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.10.16 2019가단20079

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.10.16 2019가단20079

소멸시효중단을위한재판상청구

Text

1. The Suwon District Court of Korea (Seoul District Court Decision 2009Kadan30296 Decided March 17, 2010) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was returned.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 17, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the fraternity amount with the Suwon District Court 2009Da30296, and filed a lawsuit with the Defendant, and “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 28 million won and 25% interest per annum from December 7, 1999 to the date of complete payment” was awarded a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 2010.

B. On November 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the foregoing judgment claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant lawsuit was filed for the interruption of the extinctive prescription period of November 1, 2019, when the ten-year extinctive prescription period for the final and conclusive judgment claim as above, and there is a benefit in the lawsuit, and the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from December 7, 1999 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unreasonable since it cannot be held liable to the Plaintiff by the above judgment. However, as long as the Plaintiff’s judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive in the previous lawsuit filed against the Defendant, the Defendant cannot deny the facts constituting the cause of claim of the above final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit of this case brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and it does not interfere with seeking confirmation that there was a judicial claim for the interruption of prescription.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.07.10 2020가단100933

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2020.11.06 2020가단2297

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.10.08 2020가단1026

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.09.23 2020가단5893

-수원지방법원안양지원 2020.06.04 2019가단9499