logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대구지방법원 2018.06.14 2018가합200512
계약금반환등
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have a claim based on the final judgment, and is filing the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription of the above claim.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party of the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1761 Decided November 10, 1987, etc.) In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of down payment against the Defendants on December 23, 2009 and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of down payment on September 16, 2010, “The Plaintiff,” Defendant A, Defendant A, C, D, and E, each of the above amounts of KRW 1,14,970,416, and KRW 88,757,396, and KRW 20% per annum from January 17, 2010 to the day of full payment, and each of the above amounts of KRW 3141 Decided September 21, 201.

In light of the above facts, since the ten-year extinctive prescription period, counting from the date the previous judgment became final and conclusive, remains more than three years and three-months as of the date the argument in this case was concluded, it cannot be deemed that the said ten-year statute of limitations expires, and there is no special circumstance to recognize the benefit of the lawsuit for the extension of prescription. Thus, the lawsuit in this case does not have a benefit in

I would like to say.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.