1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 5, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Defendant under the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch 2004Kadan23276, and was sentenced by the said court to accept the claim.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment was finalized on July 30, 2005.

B. Based on the original copy of the judgment of this case, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order against the Defendant, which transferred the provisional seizure to the Defendant to the provisional seizure by Jeonju District Court Branch 2006TTT1584, and around that time, the decision was delivered to the third obligor on August 24, 2006.

C. By September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff collected KRW 37,500,670,000 based on the instant collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a person who is subject to res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

The interruption of prescription by seizure shall continue until the compulsory execution procedure is completed, and when the prescription has been interrupted, the prescription period which has lapsed until the interruption thereof shall not be included in this, but shall newly run from the time when the cause for interruption ceases to exist.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317, Nov. 26, 2015). In this case, the instant claim based on the instant judgment was suspended by the instant collection order, and up to now.