beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,216,961 and the above amount to the Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 25,458,047, the full payment shall be made from April 8, 2004.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant filed a claim suit against the plaintiff with Suwon District Court 2005da41241, and on June 9, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to the judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60,216,961 won and 25,458,047 won with 25% per annum from April 8, 2004 to the day of full payment, 15,750,00 won per annum from January 1, 1999 to August 5, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment can be acknowledged to have become final and conclusive on July 4, 2006.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60,216,961 won and 25,458,047 won with 25% per annum from April 8, 2004 to the date of full payment, 15,750,00 won with 5% per annum from January 1, 1999 to August 5, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion argues to the effect that the defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion is prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, respectively, which is the cause of the Suwon District Court's claim for the agreed amount.
Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, filing a subsequent suit between the same parties with respect to the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous
In addition, in a subsequent suit as to the same subject matter of lawsuit, seeking a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the means of offence and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the prior suit is contrary to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit, and is not asked whether the parties were negligent in not knowing the said means of offence and defense in the prior suit.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 27. 201