2. Defendant B asserts to the effect that “the extinctive prescription for each of the claims of this case has been completed” as to the assertion on extinctive prescription, and the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the extinctive prescription has been completed for each of the claims of this case.”

In light of the above evidence, each of the above evidence reveals that there was a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Kadan294624) on each of the claims of this case, and that the lawsuit of this case was filed to the effect of some of the claims before the lapse of 10 years (in the case of claims established by a judgment, the period of extinctive prescription is 10 years) from the date the judgment became final and conclusive. However, it can be seen that an application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim filed by the Plaintiff on May 27, 2017, which was submitted by the Plaintiff while expanding

If facts are the same as above, it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations has not expired with respect to “10,000,000 won and damages for delay” claimed by the Plaintiff while disclosing that part of each of the claims of this case was a claim, whereas the “400,000,000 won and damages for delay” claimed for additional extension has expired after the statute of limitations expired.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable only within the scope of the original claim (100,000,000 and damages for delay) of each of the instant claims.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and part of the claim is accepted.