추심소송과 기판력의 확장

Abstract

The Supreme Court in 2016DA35390 held that res judicata of a finalized judgment of a collection action does not reach a different collection action, whereas the court formerly in other cases held that res judicata of a finalized judgement of a subrogation action reaches a different subrogation action. The reasoning of the court in 2016DA35390 is as following. First, the expansion of res judicata needs an explicit statute which allows it. Second, Section (4) of Article 249 of Civil Execution Act is built on the premise that res judicata of a finalized judgment of a collection action does not expand to another collection action unless another collection creditor got an order of joint intervention on the petition of the third debtor. Third, the court also pointed out that the requirement of standing of a subrogation action differs from that of a collection action. But the court in other cases recognized an important exception, recognizing an expansion of res judicata in subrogation actions. And considering the characteristic of a subrogation action that a subrogation creditor has standing to file an action on a debtor’s claim to a third debtor, the above rulings are reasonable. The court also has been held that a collection action has the same characteristic. So the court should have allowed the same exception for collection actions unless there are substantial grounds. The above analysis of the Section by the court in 2016DA35390 made an error in that it overlooked other and more important sections of the Article and Article 83 of Civil Procedure Act, which is the statutory basis for joint intervention in general. The difference of requirement of standing between subrogation actions and collection actions is not a sufficient ground.