beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 95,61,952 as well as KRW 25,465,337 among them, from April 20, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant as the cause of the claim as stated in the separate sheet (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Da53357, hereinafter "the prior suit of this case") and the above court rendered a judgment on July 24, 2006 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 51,034,232 won and 25,465,37 won with 17% interest per annum from January 1, 2006 to the day of full payment, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive around that time."
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from April 20, 2016 to the day of full payment, with respect to KRW 95,661,952 in the balance of the judgment, and KRW 25,465,37 in the balance of the principal.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was unaware of the name of the Defendant, and that it did not bear any loan obligations or credit card payment obligations recognized in the instant prior suit by the Defendant’s intent.
B. Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot bring a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to claim the established right have
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). Accordingly, regarding each of the claims of this case, the existence of which has become final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment (in cases of the Defendant’s assertion, the grounds for existence of the obligation existing at the time of the conclusion of pleadings in the previous suit of this case) are asserted.