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

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(1) In light of the records and arguments of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim for construction cost under Article 17(1) of the Civil Act and Article 17(2) of the Civil Act and Article 17(2) of the Civil Act, and Article 17(3) of the Civil Act, and Article 17(2) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74764, Nov. 10, 2087; 2006; 205Da74764, Oct. 18, 206; 2006; 200, the court below held that the Defendants acquired the above claim against the Defendants from the above court on August 10, 2006, which stated that “the Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff limited liability company and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from August 20, 2005 to the day of full payment.”

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on January 16, 2019 for the purpose of the extension of the statute of limitations is apparent after the lapse of 10 years from the date the said judgment became final and conclusive on the records.

According to the above facts, the instant lawsuit is instituted again against the Defendants of the said final and conclusive judgment, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights in principle, and it is apparent that there was an application for the instant payment order on January 16, 2019 after the lapse of ten years from September 8, 2006 when the said judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the benefit of lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exceptionally permissible pursuant to the above legal doctrine is not recognized.