1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the attached Form. The plaintiff's judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case is examined.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in cases where the other party in the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party in favor of one party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit

(2) Article 168 of the Civil Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription of a provisional seizure shall not apply to a claim preserved by the provisional seizure, even if a favorable judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of extinctive prescription by the provisional seizure shall not be deemed to continue to exist during the period in which the preservation of the execution by the provisional seizure continues to exist. Thus, the interruption of prescription by the provisional seizure shall continue to exist during the period in which the preservation of the execution by the provisional seizure remains effective. In addition, in light of the fact that Article 168 of the Civil Act provides for a separate cause for interruption of extinctive prescription, even if a favorable judgment on the merits of the claim preserved by the provisional seizure becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription by the provisional seizure shall not be deemed to have expired.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da11102 delivered on April 25, 2000). In addition, in a case where a part of a divisible claim is provisionally seized with a preserved claim, the interruption of prescription is effective only in part of the preserved claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 69Da3, Mar. 4, 1969). In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for indemnity amounting to KRW 51,440,000 against the Seoul District Court on September 24, 2003.