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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the loan claim established by the payment order (No. 2005Da18448).

Since a final and conclusive payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act), in cases where a party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous suit against the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to 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 lapse

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). In the instant case, the Health Center, the Suwon District Court Decision 2005Hu18448 Decided January 18, 2006, which was instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, became final and conclusive on January 18, 2006. The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to each of the deposit claims against the Defendant’s Nonghyup District Court and the Republic of Korea (Postal Service Headquarters) as the title of execution with regard to the said finalized payment order as the title of execution. The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to each of the deposit claims against the Defendant’s Nonghyup District Court and the Republic of Korea (Postal Service Headquarters) as the title of execution, and

9. The fact that each was served on the Defendant on the 31st of the same month does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the overall purport of the entries and arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3. When the seizure and collection order was served on the defendant, the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the defendant was interrupted, and the ten-year statute of limitations is resumed (Articles 168 subparag. 2 and 176 of the Civil Act). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the ten-year statute of limitations has expired on July 28, 2016, which was at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, and no special circumstance exists to acknowledge the benefit of the lawsuit for the extension of the prescription period.