beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 22,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 8, 2006 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the purchase price claim against this court, and this court rendered a judgment on April 5, 2006, stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,00,000 won with interest of 20% per annum from March 8, 2006 to the date of full payment" and that "the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 28, 2006."
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from March 8, 2006 to the date of full payment.
On this issue, the defendant asserts that it is not a debtor of the purchase price claimed by the plaintiff, and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim
Even in cases where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter as a final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive exceptionally due to special circumstances, such as a case by examining the case, interruption of prescription, etc., the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right
Therefore, in order to dispute the right relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the Defendant should first file an appeal for a lawful completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the res judicata should be extinguished. This does not change on the ground that the service of the copy of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment, etc. by service by public notice was not possible for the Defendant to bring an action against the previous suit.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). Therefore, this Court cannot make a decision inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment of the instant case No. 2005Da11482, the previous suit, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.