대여금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff applied for a payment order against the defendant on June 13, 2007 as Seoul Western District Court 2007Ra8486, and the above court sent the original copy of the payment order accepting the plaintiff's application and the statement of urging procedure guidance. The defendant served on September 30, 2007 and filed an objection against the above payment order on October 15, 2007. Accordingly, the above payment order case was implemented as litigation procedure under the Seoul Western District Court 2007Ra69677. The above court decided on April 1, 2008 that "the defendant did not appeal against the plaintiff at the rate of 200,000,000 and 20% per annum from October 1, 2007 to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") and that the defendant did not appeal to this case.
2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.
A lawsuit filed by a creditor who has already won a favorable judgment against the same claim is inappropriate in principle because there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, the benefit of protection of rights is recognized only when a lawsuit is filed for the extension of prescription due to the excessive completion of extinctive prescription.
However, as seen earlier, the instant judgment became final and conclusive on May 29, 2008. Accordingly, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on June 29, 2018 after the lapse of ten years from that date, and that the statute of limitations was interrupted.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights to seek for extension of prescription.
3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.