2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From September 9, 2007 to November 13, 2007, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant C with the iron bars equivalent to KRW 41,941,900, and the Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant C’s debt for the steel bars.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the payment of KRW 41,941,90 for steel bars jointly and severally with Seoul Southern District Court 2008Da73599, and the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on February 5, 2009, stating that “the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 41,941,900 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from August 19, 2008 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around March 25, 2009.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the instant claim, the Seoul Southern District Court 2008Da73599 filed a lawsuit for the prevention of extinctive prescription of the judgment claim.

B. A lawsuit for the prevention of extinctive prescription ought to be filed for the completion of extinctive prescription. Since the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on April 29, 2019 after the lapse of 10 years from the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the said claim after the said judgment became final and conclusive is apparent in the record, the ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a ground for re-instigation of a lawsuit against the final and conclusive judgment, and

C. As to this, the Plaintiff received an order of seizure of real estate ownership transfer registration from the Seoul Southern District Court 2009TTT 5327 as to Defendant B, even if the extinctive prescription is suspended, the extinctive prescription for the principal obligation does not cease to exist even if the extinctive prescription for the principal obligation is suspended. In the event the principal obligation ceases to exist due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the guaranteed obligation is naturally extinguished according to the nature of the principal obligation, regardless of the interruption of prescription for the principal obligation itself. Accordingly, Supreme Court Decision 9Da1