beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 234,949,335 and KRW 232,280,784 from July 16, 2009 to October 15, 2009.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 26, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and issued a credit guarantee agreement with the guaranteed amount of KRW 243,00,000 (the change to KRW 229,50,000) and the guarantee term of August 25, 2006 (the extension to August 21, 2009). B obtained a loan from C Bank with the said credit guarantee certificate, and Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed to the Plaintiff by B under the said credit guarantee agreement.
B. However, as the Plaintiff did not repay the debt to Cbank, the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the guaranteed loan amounting to KRW 232,280,784 in subrogation of B, and then filed a lawsuit against B and the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da34831, Feb. 5, 2010; the above court rendered a judgment that on the part of B and the Defendant, etc., jointly and severally with the Plaintiff for KRW 234,124,274 as well as KRW 232,280,784 as to KRW 232,280,784 as to KRW 14% per annum from July 16, 2009 to October 15, 209; and that from the next day to November 21, 2009, the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On January 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against B and the Defendant in order to prevent the extinction of the prescription period of monetary claims based on the said final judgment. The amount of payment by subrogation is KRW 2,668,551.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party identical to the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit of
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
Furthermore, in such a case, the judgment of the subsequent suit shall prevail.