beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Reasons
1. As to the claim for the takeover amount between the plaintiff and the defendant, the above court rendered a ruling on May 6, 2005 that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 4,546,619 won and 2,967,380 won a year of 29% per annum from December 10, 2004 to the date of complete payment, 8,625,106 won and 5,96,800 won a year of 25% per annum from December 10, 2004 to the date of full payment." The above ruling issued the order that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 4,546,619 won and 2,97,380 won a year of 25% interest per annum from December 10, 2004 to the date of full payment." The above ruling became final and conclusive at that time (hereinafter "the final judgment of this case") does not conflict between the parties.
2. The plaintiff argues to the effect that the above case was in progress by service by public notice and the progress of the case was never known, and that there was no application from Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. for the issuance of a Henice, or that Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. transferred its claims against the plaintiff to the defendant, and that there was no fact that the defendant either joined the EL card company as a credit card holder or was notified of the transfer of the above credit related claims, and therefore, the execution force of the final judgment of this case should be excluded.
Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize only all documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and rather, the following facts can be identified in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 4 and 5.
In other words, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the same content as the plaintiff in order to interrupt the extinctive prescription against the final judgment of this case. The plaintiff asserted the above contents in the above case, but the judgment in favor of the defendant was rendered, and the grounds for raising the objection should accrue after the pleadings for the objection were concluded. The plaintiff asserts the grounds for objection that occurred before the final judgment of this case is closed.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s request