beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 115,00,000.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, as the lessee of the open commercial building Nos. 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, issued a lawsuit claiming a refund of deposit for lease (hereinafter “the prior suit in this case”) against the Defendant and the Defendant Company G around December 16, 2009 by filing a lawsuit claiming a refund of deposit for lease (hereinafter “the prior suit in this case”) with the 115,000,000 won against the Selection (the Plaintiff in this case) around December 2008, as the lessee of the open commercial building No. 4 and the open commercial building No. 186 of the above commercial building located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, and the judgment became final and conclusive as is.
2. Determination
A. 1) Inasmuch as a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff has res judicata effect on the cause of the claim, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, in a case where the said party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party. 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 benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). The Plaintiff received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the prior suit in this case. As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of prescription due to the lapse of ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the said final and conclusive judgment is apparent, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 115,00,000.
However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay is not included in the judgment that became final and conclusive in the previous suit of this case, and the Plaintiff was filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim by the above final and conclusive judgment.