A. At around 1984, the Defendants, who were the successors of Nonparty G, filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff for the reason that the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff’s death of the network G from the front of the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, Felon (hereinafter “instant accident”). At around 20:10 on October 8, 1984, the said court rendered a judgment accepting the Defendants’ claim on April 25, 1985, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

B. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff at Suwon District Court again for the extension of the prescription period around 1995, and received a protocol of recognition and recognition as of March 23, 1995.

C. On December 16, 2004, the Defendants filed a lawsuit for the extension of prescription against the Plaintiff at the Seoul Eastern District Court. On June 15, 2005, the above court rendered a judgment to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant B KRW 15,580,276, Defendant C, KRW 14,505,126, and KRW 9,920,084, as well as damages for delay. The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2005.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the period of prescription suspended due to a judicial claim is newly run from the time the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 178(2) of the Civil Act). According to the above facts established, it is reasonable to view that the damages liability owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendants due to the instant accident was extinguished after the lapse of ten years from July 5, 2005 when the final judgment of the said last lawsuit became final and conclusive on July 5, 2015.

(B) In light of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim stated in the instant complaint, it is clear that the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the absence of the damages liability owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendants due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion that the claim is unclear cannot be accepted).

On the other hand, however,