A. As to the final judgment of the Daegu District Court case of 2005Kadan96488 delivered on December 21, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the payment of KRW 295,520 per annum under the Civil Act from May 10, 2006 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, which is the date of the determination of the above litigation costs, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of the full payment.

B. An ex officio amount paid as a health care unit and a cost of lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for the determination of the cost of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 200). Thus, there is no benefit to seek a separate lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 200). In order to interrupt the extinctive prescription of the right to demand a reimbursement of the cost of lawsuit by the determination of the amount of litigation cost

(C) The Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the Plaintiff’s Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any interest in the protection of rights as to the claim for reimbursement of the reimbursement of litigation costs of this case, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription cannot be filed against the Plaintiff’s Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any interest in the claim for reimbursement of the reimbursement of litigation costs of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Na19581, Jan. 22, 2009; 2014Da520599, Jul. 2, 2015; 2014Da47549, Nov. 205).

If there is a decision to determine the amount of litigation costs already determined due to the negligence of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.