(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단243495

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단243495

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 219,438,723 and KRW 30,500,00 among them, from December 7, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the past 197 when the first final and conclusive judgment was rendered, C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, D Co., Ltd. (Representative E), and E three persons (hereinafter “three persons including the Defendant, etc.”) to claim a loan under the Seoul Central District Court 97Kadan149609. The Defendant did not appear on the date of pleading even after receiving the written complaint, and as the Defendant did not appear on the date of pleading, three persons including the Defendant, etc., jointly and severally, to pay the amount of KRW 395,500,000 for each principal and interest, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 8, 1998.

B. After the final and conclusive judgment to interrupt extinctive prescription, the period of extinctive prescription (10 years) of the above final and conclusive judgment was imminent, and on July 4, 2008, F Co., Ltd., which acquired the above claim, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant et al. for the interruption of extinctive prescription (2008Gadan241648) and rendered a ruling to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 229,632,873 won jointly and severally with E and severally with D Co., Ltd. and 25% per annum from July 4, 2008 to the date of full payment (for the Defendant, by public notice).

C. After that, the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, filed the instant lawsuit on November 27, 2018 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim under the foregoing final judgment (10 years).

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier than the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment, there has already been a final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant (the instant lawsuit is only an action to suspend the extinctive prescription of the previous final and conclusive judgment), and the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect which cannot be challenged. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay some of the above final and conclusive judgment claimed by the

The defendant is the husband of E at will.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2021.04.28 2020가단15901

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단5257739

-창원지방법원 2018.03.22 2017가합54503

-서울남부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016나4896

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.08 2020나19950