beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant A shall be dismissed.
2. Defendant B shall provide each real estate listed in the separate sheet to Defendant A.
Reasons
1. In principle, filing a lawsuit again by a creditor who has an executory power and a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant A, which has res judicata effect, is unreasonable as there is no benefit in the lawsuit. However, the benefit in filing a lawsuit again is recognized only when there is no way to interrupt extinctive prescription, except where extinctive prescription is imminent.
According to the health account and evidence evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the Defendant for the payment of the acquisition amount (Seoul District Court 2012Gaso78588) with respect to the claim which is the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case and received the judgment in favor of all of the Defendant on February 12, 2013, and recognized the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
In addition, in the case of a claim established by judgment, the extinctive prescription is extended to 10 years even if it falls under the short-term extinctive prescription. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against defendant A against the defendant will continue to run the ten-year extinctive prescription period from February 2013 to March 2013.
Therefore, as long as the period of six years of extinctive prescription remains in the future, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant A cannot be viewed as exceptional cases where the benefit of the lawsuit is recognized.
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. 1) On June 12, 1996, Defendant A and Defendant A received money by concluding a general installment financing agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant A and the Plaintiff. (B) On April 8, 1994, Defendant A purchased telecommunications equipment from the Incheon Commercial Co., Ltd., and entered into a monetary loan agreement with Defendant A and received installment financing loans. The Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (trade name before the merger: Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.) for the payment security.
However, the defendant A did not pay the installment financing debt and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.