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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party institutes a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of a final and conclusive judgment, in principle, the subsequent suit is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). Comprehensively taking account of the health class, the entry of subparagraph 1, and the substantial facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court with respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant to the Incheon District Court on July 5, 2010 and applied for payment order against the Defendant on March 11, 2011, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 30,808,305, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 7, 2011 to the date of full payment. The said judgment can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on March 11, 2011.

However, the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 3, 2017, which was about six years after the above judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above final and conclusive judgment remains about four years.

As such, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because there is no benefit to protect the rights.

2. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.