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

A. On March 19, 197, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant by the Cheongju District Court 96Kahap6681, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on March 19, 1997.

B. In order to extend the prescription period, the Plaintiff filed a claim for indemnity with the Cheongju District Court 2007Kadan8587, and rendered a judgment on June 14, 2007, stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 78,050,000 won with the interest of 5% per annum from October 22, 1996 to April 2, 1997, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 6, 2007.

(hereinafter referred to as “final and conclusive judgment”) . [Grounds for recognition] / Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case for the extension of extinctive prescription, and the defendant raised a defense of extinctive prescription.

B. 1) Determination 1) As the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in a case where a party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the extinctive prescription of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit was completed on July

However, the instant application for the instant payment order is apparent in the record that it was filed on December 12, 2018, which was the same content as the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit, after the extinctive prescription has been completed, and barring any special circumstance, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights,

3. The plaintiff urged the defendant to pay the debt, but the defendant demanded it.