Seoul Southern District Court 2009Kahap27033 Claims against the Defendants based on the judgment of the Seoul Southern District Court.

1.The facts of the reasons for the attachment of the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the paper numbers).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant suit against the Defendants, the inheritor, in order to interrupt the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment indicated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, Defendant B and C were subject to the adjudication on waiver of inheritance, and Defendant D was subject to the adjudication on waiver of inheritance, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

B. In accordance with the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018, a lawsuit seeking confirmation for the interruption of extinctive prescription, such as the instant case, is not effective under the substantive law in addition to the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a prior judgment, and thus, it is difficult to conduct a hearing on the existence and scope of a claim and substantive legal relations in the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be examined in this lawsuit, and is therefore groundless.

(2) The court below's decision is justified. (3) If the defendant has a reason to exclude executive force after the previous judgment became final and conclusive, it seems that the defendant has to file a lawsuit for objection to the claim. (3) In conclusion, the lawsuit for confirmation of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.