1. Goyang District Court Decision 2009Gahap10096 Decided February 3, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, refund of the purchase price.

1. According to the evidence Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the above court rendered a judgment on February 3, 2010 that "the defendant jointly and severally pays to the plaintiff 400,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 26, 2007 to October 28, 2009," and that the above judgment was established on March 4, 2010.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion seeking confirmation that there is a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription based on the above final judgment is reasonable, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.

2. Defendant D’s assertion and judgment asserted that only KRW 300,000,000 out of the purchase price of KRW 400,000 was paid by the Plaintiff, and that part of the purchase price was returned, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with. However, as in this case, the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking interruption of extinctive prescription is excluded from the substantive existence and scope of the claim, and the subject matter of the lawsuit seeking interruption of extinctive prescription is limited to the legal relationship of the interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim for interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to the specific claim for which the judgment became final and conclusive

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Accordingly, Defendant D’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine the propriety of the claim.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.