2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,001,00 as well as to the plaintiff from August 1, 2007 to July 2, 2008.

A. The Korea Phone Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Phone Board”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of advertising fees under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008Gada49759, as it did not receive advertising fees even after receiving a request for advertising services from the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “prior action”). (b)

On July 4, 2008, the Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of the non-party company that "the defendant shall pay 1,001,000 won to the non-party company and 6% per annum from August 1, 2007 to July 2, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”) c.

On December 3, 2014, Nonparty Company transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff. On August 6, 2015, Nonparty Company sent to the Defendant a notice that included the intent of the transfer of claim by content-certified mail.

Under the premise that the Plaintiff is a legitimate transferee, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the prescription period of the instant claim.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party to a lawsuit has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive judgment regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit, in case where the party to whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party to the lawsuit files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit again against the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, the benefit of a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription may be acknowledged only where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da747

ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, as recognized earlier.