beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1-1, 2, and 3, the following facts can be acknowledged:
① The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim against North Korea Branch of Seoul District Court 99 Ghana 17334, and was sentenced to partial winning judgment with the purport that “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 4,685,000 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 5, 1999 to July 1, 199, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full repayment.”
② The Defendant appealed against the above judgment as Seoul District Court 99Na60213 and decided October 27, 1999. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay in excess of 5% per annum from March 11, 1999 to October 27, 1999 and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revoked portion. The Defendant’s appeal judgment became final and conclusive on November 20, 1999.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above judgment amounting to KRW 3,00,000, and the damages for delay calculated by applying 5% per annum from March 11, 1999 to October 27, 199, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the plaintiff's above claim.
On November 20, 199, the judgment on the claim for the above judgment amount became final and conclusive on November 20, 199. The plaintiff's application for the payment order of this case is apparent in the record that it was filed on December 9, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from the application. Thus, it is deemed that the above judgment amount claim has already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.