beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the relevant provisions and relevant legal principles has res judicata effect, where a party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party, the subsequent suit is unlawful
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). The period of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (see Articles 165(1) and (2) of the Civil Act); the period of prescription that has been interrupted by a judicial claim runs anew from the time judgment became final and conclusive; where prescription has been interrupted, the period of prescription that has already lapsed until the interruption thereof shall not be included therein; and the period of prescription that has expired when the cause of interruption ceases to exist; and the effect of extinctive prescription by “efforcing” among the causes of interruption
(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317 Decided November 26, 2015). B.
According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the whole pleadings as to this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the return of investment amount of KRW 148,423,853 and 85,000 among the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 148,423,853 and its total amount of KRW 85,000,000 from the above court on March 27, 2009. The above judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, which became final and conclusive on April 17, 2009 (hereinafter "the judgment prior suit of this case"), and the claim for the return of investment amount of KRW 148,423,853.