beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 131,215,679 won and 94,750,887 won among them. From February 9, 2006 to August 3, 2006.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 28, 2006, the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Ra988 Claims against the Defendant, etc. for the payment of KRW 214,208,763 to the Plaintiff jointly and severally, and KRW 212,079,702 to the Plaintiff, as from February 9, 2006; KRW 128,570,356 to the above amount jointly and severally with the Defendant, B, and C; and KRW 126,593,203 to the original delivery date of each payment order from February 9, 2006 to the original delivery date of each payment order; and KRW 20% per annum to the Defendant from the next day to the day of full payment. The payment order was issued, and KRW 126,593,203 to the Defendant was finalized on August 18, 206.
B. On July 7, 2016, the expiration of the extinctive prescription period against the Defendant, the primary debtor, filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order under the court No. 2016 tea 49070, but the Defendant filed an objection and implemented the instant legal procedure.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In the event of a final and conclusive payment order, filing a new lawsuit for the same claim shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the payment order has expired, there exist special circumstances, such as filing a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.
As to the instant case, there is a benefit in the protection of rights in the instant lawsuit for the extension of the prescription period of a claim based on the payment order finalized on August 18, 2006. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder except the amount that the Plaintiff was paid to the Plaintiff.
B. On this issue, the defendant is deemed to have completed the liquidation, and since D among the guarantors is performing the obligation, it is impossible to accept any request from any mother or the plaintiff.