The effect of interrupting prescription, in cases where a prior suit has been withdrawn while a subsequent suit is not dismissed as a duplicate action, for which the prior suit has been withdrawn.

Where a judicial claim has been withdrawn, and where a judicial claim has been filed again within six months, the prescription shall be considered to have been interrupted by the initial judicial claim. The purport of the provisions of the Civil Act, which provides that the period of prescription shall be deemed to have been interrupted by the initial judicial claim, ought to be equally applied in cases where the previous suit has been instituted while the previous suit is pending and only the subsequent

Article 170 of the Civil Act, Articles 240 and 241 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Kim In-man Kim

Gwangju District Court Decision 94Da22137 delivered on January 10, 1995

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 19,80,000 and an amount of KRW 18 percent per annum from September 12, 1983 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes per each of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 19,80,000 and an amount at the rate of KRW 18 percent per annum from June 15, 1983 to the full payment.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Each plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment of 1.3 on January 11, 1983 that the plaintiff paid the above 1.3 insurance proceeds to the non-party 1. The non-party 1.3's interest rate of 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 1. The non-party 1.3's interest rate of 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 8's 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 1.3's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 1. The non-party 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 8's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 1.3's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 9's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 1. The plaintiff is not obliged to pay the non-party 1's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 3's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 1.0's indemnity insurance proceeds to the non-party 18' indemnity insurance proceeds.

As to the lawsuit in this case against the defendant for the reason that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim under the above final judgment has expired and it is practically difficult for the plaintiff to enforce compulsory execution again, the defendant defense that the above final judgment has expired since the plaintiff's claim for indemnity amount established by the above final judgment has already been ten years, and the period of extinctive prescription has expired since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, etc. on November 30, 1983 by requesting a lawsuit for indemnity amount against the defendant, etc. as of November 10, 1983, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 10, 1984, and it is evident that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on August 2, 1994, which is 10 years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity amount based on the above final judgment, and the plaintiff's new statement on the plaintiff's claim No. 8-2 (No. 2, 56, 1984) and the first oral pleading No. 4, 97.

If a judicial claim has been withdrawn, the interruption of prescription has no effect, but in such a case, if a judicial claim is filed again within six months, the prescription shall be considered to have been interrupted by the first judicial claim (see Article 170 of the Civil Act). The purport of this provision is as in the instant case, where a subsequent suit for the same claim is filed during the continuance of the previous suit, and the subsequent suit is left, and the prior suit is withdrawn, the same shall apply to the case where the previous suit is withdrawn. Accordingly, the defendant's defense for the completion of the statute

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 19,800,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 18% per annum from September 12, 1983 to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking such payment is justified within the above scope of recognition. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the part of the defendant's appeal is accepted and the decision against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the above scope of recognition is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part is dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Do-young (Presiding Judge) Rules