beta
Text
The defendant shall pay 36,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from May 2, 2010 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the loan with the Incheon District Court 2010 Ghana 18583, and the said case was conducted by serving public notice to the Defendant.
B. On June 24, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 36,000,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from May 2, 2010 to the date of full payment.” The judgment became final and conclusive on July 15, 2010.
(c)
On March 31, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant with the same content in order to interrupt the statute of limitations for the extinguishment of a claim based on the said final judgment.
【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the relevant legal doctrine has res judicata effect, if a party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party, the subsequent lawsuit is deemed to have
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of prescription has expired due to the final judgment, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for the interruption of the prescription.
B. In such a case, the judgment of the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the subsequent suit court may not re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (Supreme Court Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). (b) The instant suit is lawful as it was filed ten-year lapse from the time the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit was rendered.
The defendant asserts that the amount borrowed from the plaintiff is not 36 million won but 20 million won. However, as seen earlier, the judgment of the previous suit contains the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.