logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.07.07 2016가단9394
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant asserts that, from March 23, 200 to June 19, 2003, the Defendant lent a total of KRW 25 million to the Defendant three times, and that, on September 7, 2011, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant that, “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 25 million to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom” from the above court, the lower court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff, which stated that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 25 million to the Defendant,” which became final and conclusive at that time, does not conflict between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleading in the statement in subparagraph 1 is recognized in full view of the purport of the pleading.

2. On October 2010, prior to the filing of a lawsuit on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff prepared a letter to the effect that “the Plaintiff will be exempted from interest and repaid only the principal,” and thereafter, repaid KRW 300,000 from November 1, 201 to November 201, 201. As such, if the sum of the above repayment principal is deducted from the leased principal, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the above judgment remains more than KRW 21,70,00 ( KRW 25,00,000 to KRW 33,30,00), and the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the above judgment remains more than the above amount, and thus, the final judgment becomes binding as a new rule governing the parties and the court, that is, the parties to the previous judgment cannot seek a new judgment on the grounds of res judicata effect, which differs from the previous judgment’s right to claim a decision on the grounds of res judicata prior to the closing of pleading (201,00,000 won).

On November 2015, the claim for reimbursement of KRW 3 million constitutes a cause after the standard date of res judicata, and thus, the damages for delay and the principal amount of the previous decision will be appropriated in order of priority.

arrow