beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 81,094,658 and KRW 62,997,445 among them, per annum from February 21, 2008 to May 21, 2008.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap's statement as to the plaintiff's claim Gap, the facts constituting the ground for the attachment can be acknowledged (However, the creditor is the plaintiff and the debtor is deemed the defendant) and the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount set forth in paragraph (1)
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the argument that C, the representative director of C, E, the director in charge of loans from Defendant D branch, and F, the president of the partnership, conspireded with G, H, I, I, the Plaintiff, J, and K, who are employees of B, to have the sales contract executed by force.
C Counterfeit forged the sales contract, F impliedly approved it, and E knowingly extended illegal loans.
Therefore, since the defendant's loans are based on forged private documents, the defendant is not obligated to repay the plaintiff's loans.
B. Res judicata 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, the res judicata effect is interrupted if 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. In addition, the new cause that occurred after the closing of argument refers to a new fact, and does not include the circumstances such as the existence of new evidence regarding the existing facts or a new legal assessment or another judgment that contains such legal assessment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da222149, Aug. 30, 2016). 2) The foregoing reasons asserted by the Defendant are merely grounds that the Plaintiff could have asserted against the Defendant and B corporation as a means of attack and defense in the claim lawsuit, such as loans raised by the Incheon District Court 2008Da2755
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not permissible because it conflicts with the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment in a claim suit such as the above loan.
3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.