beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the loans extended from SBI Savings Bank on December 15, 1998.
Reasons
1. The ground for the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of the plaintiff is as set out in the annexed Form "the ground for the claim."
2. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this part, ex officio, as to the validity of the claim for transfer money as to the claim No. 4 in the annexed claim No. 4 of the annexed claim specification No. 4 (hereinafter in this case “claim No. 4”).
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the lawsuit, the subsequent suit is unlawful
However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
In addition, the final and conclusive payment order has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the final and conclusive judgment also remains effective as against the successors subsequent to the closure of pleadings (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). A person who succeeds to the legal relationship of the subject matter of a lawsuit after the closure of pleadings or the final and conclusive payment order, may not bring a lawsuit again,
According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 7-1, 4, and Gap evidence 8, the defendant leased 10,000,000 won from Choung Bank on December 15, 1998 under Eul's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties, the defendant transferred the above loan to Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank around July 4, 2005, and notified the transfer of the above loan to the defendant; the Hyundai Switzerland Savings Bank, a bond transferee, applied for a payment order against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court 201 tea80541, and the above payment order was issued.