The purchase price case of the Plaintiff against the Defendant (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Da8562 decided August 18, 2010).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the case described in the Disposition No. 1 of this Decree, the Suwon District Court Decision 2010 Ghana8562.

On August 18, 2010, the Suwon District Court rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) with the purport that the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,316,440 and KRW 6.2 million with interest of KRW 19,316,440 per annum from July 10, 2010 to the date of full payment. The said judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2010.

B. After the instant judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 27, 2020, which was before ten years elapse, which was the extinctive prescription period.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, obvious fact in this court, and purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to the cause of a claim, “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance suit, which is a subsequent suit for the interruption of prescription with respect to a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, and an obligee may select and file a suit that is more suitable for his/her situation and needs among the two types of

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of a judicial claim against the Defendant for the interruption of the statute of limitations of the claim for the purchase price of goods, based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 is that the Defendant paid part of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and the claim amount according to the instant judgment is not reasonable, and that the Defendant who operated the franchise store due to the Plaintiff’s temporary suspension of the franchise business, suffered a large amount of damages, in light of such damages.