logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.14 2018나60931 (1)
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the acquisition amount (hereinafter "the previous lawsuit in this case") by means of Seoul Eastern District Court 2008Gaso7287. The lawsuit in this case was initiated by service, and on June 18, 2008, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,463,557 won and 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to June 6, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The judgment was affirmed in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant filed an appeal against the previous lawsuit in this case, but it is evident that the defendant's application for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim in this case was rejected by the Seoul East District Court 208Da32818, Oct. 28, 2019.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the money pursuant to the judgment in the prior suit that became final and conclusive to the plaintiff. Since the lawsuit in this case was filed for the extension of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment in the prior suit, there is benefit of lawsuit as re-

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 9,463,57 won with 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to June 6, 2008, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated with 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings as requested by the plaintiff from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The Defendant asserts that the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion was unlawful.

However, there are special circumstances such as the interruption of prescription, even if a new suit is exceptionally allowed based on the same subject matter as a final and conclusive judgment, the judgment of a new suit is rendered.

arrow