1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price under the Head of Changwon District Court Decision 2008Kadan11589 and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on January 30, 2009; and (b) the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 17, 2009 (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the pertinent lawsuit has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive judgment, in cases where the relevant party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party, the subsequent

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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the extinctive prescription of a final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit was completed on February 1

However, it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 19, 2019, which was the same content as the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit, after the extinctive prescription has expired. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek an extension of prescription.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.