1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. On November 29, 200, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase price against the Defendant on March 16, 2001, for a judgment on the cause of the claim with the Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2000Kadan59238, and filed a claim for the purchase price, and on March 16, 2001, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20,332,730 and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from January 12, 2001 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 12, 2001, and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with the same claim as the above judgment on February 10, 201 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the final and conclusive judgment.

According to the above facts, the interest in the lawsuit in this case is recognized as a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the above-mentioned 200da59238 case, which has been filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20,332,730 won according to the contents of the above final judgment and the amount calculated by the ratio of 25% per annum from January 12, 2001 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant's claim of this case against the defendant has expired three years of extinctive prescription.

However, in special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, even if a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements to claim the established right have been satisfied.

Therefore, in order to dispute the right relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the defendant first filed a lawful appeal for subsequent completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the res judicata should be extinguished. This is because the copy of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, and thus, the defendant could not have responded to the previous suit due to any cause not attributable to the defendant.