(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.02.25 2019가단25065

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.02.25 2019가단25065

물품대금(소멸시효연장을 위한 확인의 소)

Text

1. Claims established by judgment in the Incheon District Court 2003Gaso71023 among the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment of November 27, 2003 that "the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 9,970,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 3, 2003 to the date of full payment," and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 2003, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of prescription of the claim established by the judgment as above on September 17, 2019.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, etc., the obligee may file a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only to confirm that there was a “judicial claim” for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of a judicial claim for

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) There is no price for goods to be paid to the Plaintiff.

B) The period of extinctive prescription of a claim for the price of goods based on the instant judgment is ten years, and there is no ground to interrupt extinctive prescription, and thus, the extinctive prescription of a claim for the price of goods has already been completed before the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed. (2) The subject matter of a new form of litigation seeking confirmation is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim

Since the judgment does not have the effect of substantive law in addition to the interruption of prescription of the claim established by the judgment in a prior suit, the existence and scope of the claim, including the completion of extinctive prescription, shall be examined in the lawsuit.

참조판례

-대법원 2018. 10. 18. 선고 2015다232316 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.02.25 2019가단25065

-인천지방법원 2020.05.12 2019가단21612

-수원지방법원 2021.03.10 2020가단543191

-부산지방법원 2020.07.22 2020가단3204

-인천지방법원 2020.10.08 2020가단12485