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

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price claim as Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan225133, and received a favorable judgment from the above court on September 27, 2005. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the above judgment.

However, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in a case where the party against the other party to the previous suit in favor of one party in favor of one party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a lawsuit against the same claim as the previous suit in favor of one party in favor of one party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription, which is the period of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment, has expired, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

As to the instant case, the foregoing judgment was finalized on October 13, 2005, and it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 2, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years thereafter. Thus, the Plaintiff’s interest in the instant lawsuit is not recognized.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.