beta
Text
1. The Defendants together with the Plaintiff KRW 38,585,00 per annum from December 1, 2006 to December 28, 2006.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the claim of promissory notes with Seoul Southern District Court 2006Kadan113097 (hereinafter "prior lawsuit"), and on March 13, 2007, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 38,585,000 won with interest of 5% per annum from December 1, 2006 to December 28, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment," and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive around that time, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on January 24, 2017 for the extension of the prescription period of claims based on the prior lawsuit."
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants jointly claim 38,585,000 won against the plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 1, 2006 to December 28, 2006, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
have a duty to pay the amount of money calculated in proportion to each of the above ratios.
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion
A. The summary of the Defendant B’s assertion was promised by the Defendant C to not use the blank promissory note for any purpose other than the goods price, and the Defendant C violated this, and thus, the Defendant B cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.
B. In special circumstances, such as interruption of extinctive prescription, where a new suit based on the same subject matter of a lawsuit is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.
Therefore, the defendant's judgment in favor of the previous suit is legitimate in order to dispute the legal relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit.