logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.16 2014나24541
양수금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. From Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. among the lawsuit of this case

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment of each credit that he/she acquired from a new card company (hereinafter “new card”), Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Capital”), Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Capital”), Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madern Card”), Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madern Card”), and Foreign Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Foreign Exchange Bank”), from the Defendant. The first instance court dismissed the part of the claim seeking payment of the remainder of the credit acquired.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against this issue, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the above modern Capital, lotl, lotl, lot card, and foreign exchange bank's claim for the payment of the bonds each acquired from the foreign exchange bank.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the claim seeking payment of KRW 2,663,835 (the sum of KRW 1,636,90 and interest KRW 1,026,935 and interest KRW 2,663,835) from Hyundai Capital ex officio.

A final and conclusive judgment shall have effect on a successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings, in addition to the parties concerned (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the transferee of a judgment ordering monetary payment after the closure of pleadings also constitutes the above successor.

However, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, in cases where a party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in which a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the lawsuit again becomes final and conclusive, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, unless it is obvious that the ten-year lapse

In this case, the part of the claim for the loan that the Plaintiff sought against Hyundai Capital.

arrow