소멸시효연장
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant in order to prevent the completion of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the sales price judgment against the Sungwon District Court 2009Gau32003, Sungnam-si, Gwangju District Court 2009.
2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.
Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as
However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.
(1) As to the interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of extinctive prescription, which has lapsed until interruption, is not included in the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Meanwhile, in the event the interruption of prescription is interrupted, the interruption of prescription by the seizure among the interruption of extinctive prescription can be deemed to have expired when the seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is terminated.
(2) According to the records of this case and the facts in this court, it is recognized that the judgment of Suwon District Court 2009Da32003 was finalized on December 31, 2009 against the defendant, and the plaintiff was finalized on or around February 1, 2019 based on the above final judgment, as Seoul Central District Court 2019TTT1597, issued a collection and collection order against the defendant's third party debtor around November 20, 2019, and collected KRW 6,24,630 on or around November 20, 2019, based on the above final judgment of the plaintiff, the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's claim was interrupted due to the above final judgment of the court, as well as upon the termination of the execution procedure by the plaintiff's execution of the above claims.