1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant in Suwon District Court Decision 2008Kadan51273 decided on the purchase price.

In other words, the plaintiff filed a claim for payment of the above price and damages for delay, alleging that even though the plaintiff supplied the joint purchase to the defendant from June 19, 2004 to August 11, 2004, the amount of KRW 37,709,250 was not paid by the defendant.

B. On December 24, 2008, the above court rendered a ruling that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37,709,250 won with 6% per annum from August 12, 2004 to November 28, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the above ruling became final and conclusive on January 10, 209.

[Reasons for Recognition] Description A’s Evidence No. 1, which is obvious to this Court

2. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the judgment of this case. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,709,250 won and 6% interest per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from August 12, 2004 to November 28, 2008 and 12% interest per annum as requested by the plaintiff from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. The defendant asserts that the non-existence of an obligation does not bear any obligation against the plaintiff.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, if a new lawsuit is filed based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the judgment that became final and conclusive for the interruption of extinctive prescription, the judgment of the new lawsuit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous lawsuit. As such, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da293858, Apr. 24, 2018).