beta
Text
1. The defendant in collaboration with the defendant corporation B, and the plaintiff
A. 6,441,059 won and 3,133,740 won among them
Reasons
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription.
In such a case, 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 cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). According to the respective entries and the entire purport of pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against B (principal debtor under a credit guarantee agreement) and the Defendant, etc. (e.g., the issuer and endorser of a promissory note related thereto). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement amount under the Busan District Court Decision 2005Da30531, Jul. 8, 2005. The lawsuit in this case is the subsequent suit filed by the Plaintiff in order to prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription after the judgment above was partially repaid after the judgment above, and reflecting this, it can be recognized as identical to the purport of the claim.
As to this, the defendant asserts that there was no endorsement or signature on the promissory note at issue, and that there is no responsibility for the issuance of the tax invoice.
However, as long as the judgment in the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive to have established the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant through the judgment, it cannot be re-examineed as to whether the Defendant has endorsed and affixed a promissory note at issue in the instant lawsuit brought for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the established claim.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.