1. The Defendant’s KRW 58,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s 20% per annum from July 7, 2010 to July 11, 2020, and the following.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the sales proceeds of KRW 58,096,600 with the Defendant as the head of 2010dan5246, and filed a lawsuit seeking the sales proceeds of KRW 58,000 on June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,00,000 to the Plaintiff by July 6, 2010. If the Defendant did not pay the said amount by the payment date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the payment date to the day of full payment.” The decision (hereinafter “instant compulsory adjustment”) became final and conclusive on June 26, 2010.

(A) Evidence No. 1). (b)

According to the above facts, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the money stated in the above order to the plaintiff who seeks to suspend the extinctive prescription of the claim in the forced conciliation of this case.

(However, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 96,600,00, which is included in the original claim amount, other than the above KRW 58,000,000, but the fact that the amount of compulsory adjustment decision of this case was 58,000,000 is as seen earlier, and as seen below, the legal relationship that has already been determined by the above compulsory adjustment cannot be re-examine in this case. Thus, the defendant's claim on February 1, 200 is without merit).

A. On the summary of the argument, the defendant asserts that ① the defendant's receipt of the forced adjustment of this case was confirmed as a wind that does not deliver it to the defendant, and ② the supply of the above original unit is a C company which entered into an OEM contract and delivered the clothing, and the plaintiff is not a party to the above original unit supply contract, and thus, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the above original unit supply price.

B. Determination 1) In the case of a re-instigation of a suit for interruption of extinctive prescription, the judgment in the subsequent suit cannot conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right have been satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1088, Oct. 2