2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 40 million from August 24, 2006 to June 18, 2007.

A. On June 7, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against the Defendant with the Seoul District Court 2007 tea3992, and the said court ordered payment of the same content as the Disposition No. 2, and the same year.

7.3. The above payment order was finalized as it is.

B. On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of extending the prescription period of a claim based on the above payment order.

C. On this issue, the court of first instance rejected the instant lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff, for whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the instant lawsuit was rendered, filed a lawsuit again against the Defendant, who is the other party to the instant lawsuit, and there is no interest in the protection of rights. Since the ten years have passed after the final and conclusive judgment, the extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has already been completed,

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a suit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there

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 a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

(see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987; 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006; 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). Meanwhile, the principle of pleading applies to the assertion and certification as to the major facts that constitute the legal requirement for determining the legal effect of creation, alteration, and extinguishment of rights in civil proceedings.

Therefore, the statute of limitations defense extinguishing a right must be decided by the Supreme Court on March 22, 2017, only when the party's assertion is made in accordance with the principle of pleading, but Supreme Court Decision 2016Da258124.