beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant A and jointly with G Co., Ltd. for KRW 275,964,562 and KRW 176,959,013 among them
Reasons
1. The facts of the facts of recognition and the reasons for the claim in the attached Form of judgment shall be deemed to have been led to the confession between the plaintiff and the defendant A, and the plaintiff, the defendant D, and the defendant E may be acknowledged by the purport of the whole entries and arguments in the evidence of subparagraphs A (1) through (6), B (1), 2, and 3 and the whole arguments.
As to this, Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant E, the heir of the deceased C, filed a lawsuit on October 19, 2004 in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2004Da337787, which was the previous judgment on the instant loan, and died on March 27, 2005, the deceased was on the part of the deceased on April 18, 2006, and the above judgment was rendered and finalized on January 18, 2006, the previous judgment was rendered only based on the death of the deceased, and there is no effect of the extension of prescription, and the lawsuit of this case brought on January 25, 2016 for the extension of prescription is without merit.
In a case where a judgment is rendered after the interruption of a litigation procedure due to the death of either party during the course of a lawsuit and the pleading is terminated, the judgment is unlawful in the procedure that results in the exclusion of legitimate takeovers who can participate in the lawsuit from the authority of a legitimate takeovers, but the judgment cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. However, the judgment is only entitled to seek revocation by an appeal or retrial on the ground of defects of power of attorney, just as in the case where the judgment was not legally represented by an agent.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da28444, May 23, 1995). According to this, the above Defendants’ assertion based on the premise that the previous judgment of this case is null and void as a matter of course is without merit.
2. According to the conclusion, Defendant A, a transferee of the claim, jointly and severally with G, as to KRW 275,964,562 out of the total principal and interest of loans, and KRW 176,959,013 of the remaining principal and interest of KRW 176,959,013.