2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant, “11,313,372 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to November 6, 2008, and 20% per annum from November 7, 2008 to the date of full payment” against the Defendant, but was referred to as a litigation procedure.

(A) On November 21, 2008, the above court rendered a favorable judgment of the plaintiff on November 21, 2008. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 17, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as “a final and conclusive judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 18, 2018 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the past final and conclusive judgment.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,313,372, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to November 6, 2008, 20% per annum from November 7, 2008 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that the claim in this case was extinguished after the lapse of 10 years from October 25, 2003 to 10 years, and that the judgment in favor of the Defendant became final and conclusive has res judicata effect. Thus, in principle, the parties cannot file a new suit based on the same subject matter as the judgment that became final and conclusive, or in exceptional circumstances, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, a new suit is exceptionally permissible. In such a case, the judgment in a new suit does not conflict with the contents of the judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10008