beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 82,623,277 and KRW 25,191,981 among them, from February 5, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), the plaintiff acquired each claim against the defendant (hereinafter "each claim of this case"), and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as the cause of the claim of each claim of this case (Seoul District Court 2006Da1575, hereinafter "the former claim of this case"), and the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 36,137,292 won and 25,191,981 won among them at the rate of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the day of complete payment" without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act on April 20, 206, it is recognized that the judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 82,623,277 won in the balance of the principal and interest of the judgment as of February 4, 2016 and the principal amount of KRW 25,191,981, which is the day following the start of the final damages for delay, with 17% per annum from February 5, 2016 to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant did not bear the amount of the obligation as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was unlawful, since each of the instant claims became extinct by prescription.
B. Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, a party cannot bring a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be exceptionally allowed. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right have been satisfied (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da6157, Oct. 28, 2010).