beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,281,40 as well as KRW 50,281,373 as from June 5, 2009 until December 31, 2009.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 23, 2009, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for reimbursement amounting to the Daegu District Court 2009Kadan63479. On January 29, 2010, the court below held that "the Defendant shall pay to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund 50,281,40 won and 50,281,373 won with 15% per annum from June 5, 2009 to December 31, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to December 31, 2009."
(2) On June 30, 2015, the above judgment was rendered and became final and conclusive. (b) On June 5, 2020, the Credit Guarantee Fund transferred to the Plaintiff claims based on the judgment in the previous suit against the Defendant, and sent the notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant by content-proof mail. [Grounds for recognition] Nos. 1 through 5 (each entry and the purport of the entire pleadings including each number)
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who acquired the claim from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund based on the judgment in a prior suit at the rate of 50,281,40 won and 50,281,373 won among them, 15% per annum from June 5, 2009 to December 31, 2009 and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.
(The defendant asserts that the plaintiff, not the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, has notified the transfer of claims, has no effect, but it is not reasonable because the notification party is the Credit Guarantee Fund according to Gap evidence 5-1.
The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations for the claim of this case has expired for five years.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(2).