(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단26623

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단26623

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 24,295,00 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 1, 2003 to January 15, 2005.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the court below rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff, stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 24,295,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2003 to January 15, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and that the above judgment was finalized on March 15, 2005, and that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on November 27, 2014 to extend the extinctive prescription period of claims based on the above judgment." Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above judgment to the plaintiff as stated in the order.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant could not accept a complaint at the time of filing a claim for loans with the Changwon District Court Decision 2004Da45014, and that the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim because he/she is aware of who is the plaintiff.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect in a final and conclusive favorable judgment, the parties can not file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, and in exceptional circumstances such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit does 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 claim the established right

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is against the res judicata of the judgment in the previous Changwon District Court 2004Kadan45014, and it is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.04.17 2014가단29512

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.22 2017가단5033158

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.07.14 2015가단4568

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.26 2015나6405

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.09.10 2015가단3029