logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2017.12.22 2017가합264
계약이행보증금반환
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Unless special circumstances exist, such as the lapse of the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, in a case where a party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has become final and conclusive files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting the rights.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D (Death, Apr. 8, 2017) and E seeking payment of contract deposit, etc., and decided January 30, 2009 by the Daegu District Court Decision 2008Gahap613 Decided January 30, 2009, “D and E jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 30 million won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from September 19, 2008 to the day of full payment” is significant in this court.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of judgment based on the above winning judgment is completed on April 3, 2019, when ten years have passed since the date when the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act, and the extinctive prescription period is completed on April 3, 2019. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the date of completion of prescription is imminent at the present point because the period of one

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s heir, Defendant A (spouse), Defendant B (child), and Defendant C (child) had no interest in filing a lawsuit identical to the above final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and this constitutes a defect in the requirements for litigation that cannot be corrected, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[However, aside from the fact that the plaintiff may bring a lawsuit identical to the claim in this case against the person who succeeded to the above judgment amount ( taken into account the renunciation of inheritance, etc.) before the expiration of the above extinctive prescription period, the plaintiff may satisfy the requirements for the lawsuit.]

arrow