(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.19 2017나32694

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.19 2017나32694

양수금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 29, 2008, a social loan company A&P borrowed KRW 1.6 million to the Defendant on a fixed and conclusive basis on April 29, 2008 (hereinafter “instant loan”). On February 27, 2009, the said company transferred the instant loan claim to A&P loan company (e.g., the company changed its trade name to the Plaintiff) and notified the Defendant of the instant loan claim around March 20, 201, around February 20, 201.

B. On November 26, 2012, 201, 201, 19, the YIB Co., Ltd. filed the instant loan claim lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Central District Court 201Gaso2774674, and sentenced the above court to “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,590,256 and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 48.54% per annum from November 19, 2008 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 15, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the final and conclusive judgment regarding the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit has res judicata effect, where a party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party institutes a lawsuit against the other party to the instant lawsuit identical to that in the prior suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive

(1) In light of the foregoing legal principles, the term “the term of extinctive prescription” under Article 15(1) of the former Act means the term “the term of extinctive prescription,” and “the term of extinctive prescription,” and “the term of “the term of extinctive prescription,” and “the term of extinctive prescription,” and “the term of extinctive prescription,” respectively.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.11.27 2019가단215243

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나13808

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.15 2017나31653

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.11.04 2015가단5817

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나42615