beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. From November 25, 2006 to October 30, 2008, 19,322,620 won and 7,413,00 won among them
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the entire purport of the arguments and arguments as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the facts stated in the separate sheet “the cause of the claim” and “the changed cause of claim,” and the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition
B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant only lent the name to the non-party B for business registration, but the non-party B made a loan transaction with a financial institution without the defendant's consent, so the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.
In special circumstances, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, even where a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as a final and conclusive judgment is exceptionally permitted, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.
(2) In the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim, as stated in the Evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (including the serial number), the former Seoul Central District Court 2006Gaso2475911, and the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gaso305478, as long as each claim against the Defendant of the Bank, the Korean National Bank, the Korean National Bank, and the Korean National Bank, has become final and conclusive, as long as each claim against the Defendant of the former Seoul Central District Court is established, it is impossible to re-examine whether the act of causing the occurrence of the claim is valid in the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the final and conclusive claim. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.