(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나2019 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나2019

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

When a decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive, filing a new lawsuit with the same content as that of a final and conclusive judgment does not have any benefit in the protection of rights.

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.

(2) On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 15,00,000 with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-si, 13538, 2007, the 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 15,00,00,000, which is part of the debt based on the decision on performance recommendation that became final and conclusive on Oct. 20, 2014. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation.

If so, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation against the Defendant came into effect on October 20, 2014 with the approval of the Defendant’s partial repayment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39854, Jan. 23, 1996) and the interruption of prescription against the entire remainder of the same day (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39854, Jan. 23, 1996) and thereafter, the ten-year extinctive prescription is newly run. The instant lawsuit

2. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

참조판례

-대법원 1996. 1. 23. 선고 95다39854 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.11.27 2019가단215243

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.13 2019가단5244136

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.11.16 2016가단13462

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단48867