Suwon District Court Decision 2009Na26024 decided Nov. 25, 2009.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the payment of promissory notes with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Branch 2009 Ghana26024, and on November 2, 2009, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant jointly pays to the Plaintiff 11,185,635 won and interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from April 28, 1999 to the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). The Prior Judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On November 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the instant prior judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B: Defendant C of Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act; there is no dispute; each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3; and the judgment of the court below as to the cause of claim as to the whole of the arguments. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of the existence of the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the prior judgment is reasonable, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.

Defendant C’s assertion regarding Defendant C’s assertion was subject to exemption from immunity including the Plaintiff as the obligee after Defendant C’s prior ruling of this case.

Judgment

As in the instant lawsuit, the subject matter of the lawsuit seeking the interruption of extinctive prescription is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim for interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to specific claims for which judgment has become final and conclusive, with the exclusion of

Since the judgment does not have the effect of substantive law in addition to the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment in a prior suit, it is not necessary to examine the existence of the claim including the expiration of extinctive prescription and the substantive legal relationship such as the scope.

An obligee asserts that the judgment in a prior suit has become final and conclusive as the cause of the claim and that a subsequent suit has been filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim, but this is based on a copy of the judgment in the prior suit and a final confirmation