(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.10 2015가단55647

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.10 2015가단55647

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant filed a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff at this Court No. 2011 Ghana1030, Nov. 17, 201, and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) from this Court that “The Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 14,309,480 and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 23, 2003 to July 5, 2011, and 20% per annum from July 6, 2011 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) On September 22, 2003, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff regarding an automobile accident that occurred while driving a non-insurance vehicle owned by C, a representative of B on December 30, 2002, with the effect that the Defendant paid KRW 24,309,480, including the agreed amount and medical expenses, to D, the victim of the automobile accident, and received KRW 10,300,000 from C, and acquired the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the remainder of KRW 14,309,480, and the judgment of this case was pronounced.

(2) However, the Defendant’s claim for the amount of indemnity expired after the lapse of the five-year prescription from September 22, 2003, and the Defendant agreed that C shall pay the amount of indemnity to the Defendant between C and C, but the Defendant shall not claim the amount of indemnity to the Plaintiff.

(3) The enforcement by the Defendant’s judgment in this case constitutes an abuse of right that violates the good faith principle and thus should not be allowed.

B. (1) In the event of a final judgment which became final and conclusive, any assertion or defense based on the grounds that could have been generated and submitted prior to the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court is prohibited by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the parties are not allowed to newly make such grounds contrary to the final

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement has expired.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.12 2017가단986

-대법원 1988. 9. 27. 선고 88다3116 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나37066

-청주지방법원 2018.04.12 2017가단7149

-수원지방법원여주지원이천시법원 2016.11.03 2016가단23