1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio, we examine whether the instant lawsuit is lawful.

As to the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant, there has been a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap5487), in principle, there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek a favorable judgment on the same claim (the Plaintiff may enforce compulsory execution with enforcement title on the judgment that became final and conclusive in the previous suit): Provided, That given that there is room for the Defendant to raise an objection against extinctive prescription after the lapse of 10 years from the date the judgment on the previous suit became final and conclusive, there is benefit in the protection of rights to bring a lawsuit again for interruption of extinctive prescription in a case where it is obvious that

I would like to say.

However, in the case of this case, on July 19, 2017, the extinctive prescription had already been completed since the judgment of the previous suit became final and conclusive on April 25, 2006, since it was apparent that the ten-year period from April 25, 2006.

Since there is no room to interrupt the extinctive prescription after the extinctive prescription has already expired, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting the rights of the lawsuit in this case for the extension of prescription.

2. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.