beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 350,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 13, 2007 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Busan District Court Branch Branch 2007Gahap2908, and on January 8, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 350,000,000 won and interest at the rate of 20% per annum from July 13, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the preceding judgment”). The preceding judgment became final and conclusive on February 5, 2009.
B. On January 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the purpose of extending the prescription period of the instant prior judgment.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 350,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 13, 2007 to the date of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The main evidence, which served as the basis for the defendant's assertion of the defendant's liability to the plaintiff, was forged, and since C, which operated the hospital with the plaintiff and the defendant, acquired the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff, the defendant did not have any obligation to the plaintiff.
B. In a case 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 extinctive prescription. Furthermore, in such a case, the judgment of a subsequent suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). As long as the existence of the Defendant’s obligation to pay money to the Plaintiff in the prior suit of this case becomes final and conclusive, the extension of extinctive