In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the Gwangju District Court 2008Ga District Court 297604, Nov. 24, 2009. The judgment of the court below that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,623,664 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from November 8, 2008 to November 24, 2009, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The defendant appealed against this judgment and appealed with the same court 2010Na497, but the defendant appealed against the above court on July 30, 2010, and the defendant again appealed with the judgment of the court and dismissed the appeal by Supreme Court 201Na74300, Feb. 15, 201.

In a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive due to a judgment, etc., a creditor of the judgment on the cause of the claim in this court may file a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only to confirm that there was “a claim in trial” to suspend the interruption of prescription (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018). As such, the Plaintiff may seek confirmation on the existence of the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of the statute of limitations for the extinguishment of a claim based on the above judgment.

The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion that the defendant partially repaid the service costs while the lawsuit claiming the above service costs is pending.

Although the court asserted that the above judgment should be judged again without recognizing it, in case where the creditor who has already received the judgment in favor of the court seeks to confirm the existence of "judicial claim" for the interruption of prescription of the claim established by the judgment in the previous suit, it is necessary to review the existence of the claim including the extinction of prescription and the existence of substantive legal relationship such as the scope of statute of limitations.