A. On May 22, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da23342, and received a favorable judgment from the above court that “The Plaintiff shall pay 38 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from March 14, 2009 to the date of full payment.” The judgment became final and conclusive on July 7, 2009.

(hereinafter “instant final judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit around May 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff has res judicata effect on the cause of the claim, where the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff has become final and conclusive files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit again against the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the subsequent lawsuit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases where it is clear that the ten-year lapse period, which is the period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment, has expired, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987). Therefore, the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription due

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 38 million won with 20% interest per annum from March 14, 2009 to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant asserted that KRW 15 million out of the Plaintiff’s claim amount is recognized, but the remainder of KRW 23 million cannot be recognized.

Even in cases where a new suit based on the same subject matter of a lawsuit is exceptionally allowed due to special circumstances, such as the case to be examined and the interruption of prescription, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit.