beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 as well as 12% per annum from January 25, 1996 to August 23, 1996, and on August 24, 1996.
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant on May 22, 1996 against the Seoul Central District Court 96Da109758, which was sentenced in favor of the defendant on September 17, 1996 for the same reason as the stated in the reasons in the separate sheet, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 10, 1996, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant on September 18, 2006 again on September 27, 2006 for the extension of the statute of limitations, and received the payment order order order on October 27, 2006, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant on October 21, 2016 for the extension of the statute of limitations.
If the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a claim identical to the previous suit in favor of the other party in a final and conclusive judgment, exceptionally, if the ten-year lapse of the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has become imminent, the subsequent suit has the benefit of protecting the right.
The plaintiff's request is accepted.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not borrow money and did not bear the obligation.
However, there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, even if a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and the court of the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right have been satisfied.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da1645, Jun. 12, 1998; 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010; 2012Da11340, Apr. 11, 2013). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted without need for further review.