beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant C and the part of the claim against the Defendants for demand procedure costs.
Reasons
1. As to the Plaintiff’s demand procedure cost claim, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 60,200,00 for demand procedure cost incurred in the Ulsan District Court No. 2014Guj2833, Ulsan District Court’s 2014. However, the amount paid as litigation cost can be repaid through the procedure for determination of the amount of litigation cost. Therefore, it is unlawful as there is no
2. We examine ex officio the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C regarding the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
As to the Plaintiff’s loan claim against Defendant C, there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek a judgment in favor of winning the same claim in principle, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek a favorable judgment (the Plaintiff may enforce compulsory execution with the title of execution of the payment order finalized in the previous suit). However, even if the claim finalized in the payment order for ten years after the payment order for the previous suit became final and conclusive falls under the short-term extinctive prescription, the period of extinctive prescription may be extended to 10 years (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). As there is room for Defendant C to raise a defense of extinctive prescription after the lapse of this period (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). Thus, there is benefit in the protection of rights to bring a lawsuit again for the interruption of extinctive prescription
I would like to say.
However, in the instant case, on June 25, 2014, it is apparent that the payment order of the previous lawsuit was ten years since February 21, 2004, and the extinctive prescription has already been completed, since it was clear that the payment order of the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive.
Since there is no room to interrupt the extinctive prescription after the extinctive prescription has already expired, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting the rights of the lawsuit in this case for the extension of prescription.
3. On the plaintiff's claim against B, according to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is against the defendant B.