beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,200,000 as well as KRW 800,000 as of December 13, 2003 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Since a judgment in favor of a person who has become final and conclusive of the relevant legal doctrine has res judicata effect, in principle, the parties shall not be able to institute a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as that of the final and conclusive judgment. However, even in cases where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter as that of the judgment in favor of a person who has become final and conclusive on the grounds of special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, the judgment in a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da1645, Jun. 12, 1998; 2012Da11340, Apr. 11, 2013). (B)
Judgment
In full view of the purport of Gap evidence 1-1, 2 and the whole arguments, on December 5, 2003, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of KRW 1.7 billion and its delay damages against Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2003Gahap6053 on December 5, 2003. The Seoul High Court (2006Na21387, hereinafter "the appellate court of this case") which was the appellate court (hereinafter "the appellate court of this case") won part of the plaintiff as stated in the purport of the claim on July 26, 2007, and it is recognized that the appellate court of this case became final and conclusive on December 4, 2007.
In light of the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case again for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the judgment of the appellate court related to this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case should be accepted as it is, barring any special circumstances. However, since the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was amended after the judgment of the appellate court related to this case became final and conclusive, the part of the claim for delay damages in the claim in this case is 20% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 30, 2015).