1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 118,312,00.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the arguments, the Plaintiff, as the lessee under D Terminal No. 1 and No. 2, filed a lawsuit claiming the return of lease deposit against the Defendant and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the prior suit in this case”) with the 186 other lessee of the above shopping district on December 23, 2008, as the lessee under D Terminal No. 186, the Plaintiff was declared to “the Defendant would pay KRW 118,312,00 to the Plaintiff” on December 16, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive as is.

2. Determination

A. (i) The final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has res judicata effect on the cause of the claim. In the event the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that in the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party

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.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). The facts that the Plaintiff received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the previous suit are as seen earlier, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription is apparent in the record as the ten-year lapse of the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment is apparent. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 118,312,00 to the Plaintiff according to the final and conclusive judgment of the instant previous suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff also sought damages for delay after the judgment date of the previous suit in this case regarding the above KRW 118,312,000.

However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay is not included in the Plaintiff’s claim based on the judgment established in the previous suit of this case, and it is permissible to seek new payment of damages for delay in the instant lawsuit filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription.