1. Claims between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the judgment in this Court’s case of collection amount 2010Gahap189 Decided November 3, 2011.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On August 18, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (the former trade name before the change: C) on November 3, 2011, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment in exclusive lawsuit”) that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 195,869,688 won and its interest at a rate of 6% per annum from August 27, 201 to November 3, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment in exclusive lawsuit”).

3) The judgment in the prior suit became final and conclusive on November 23, 201. (b) On August 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in the form of a performance suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the judgment in the prior suit, but changed the instant lawsuit to a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only with respect to the existence of a judicial claim for the judgment in the prior suit finalized on October 4, 2019. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the evidence No. 1, and No. 1, each entry in the evidence No. 1, and this court, the substantial fact, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the main defense of safety asserts that the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed as there is no benefit in the lawsuit since the expiry date of the extinctive prescription of the judgment in the prior suit was November 23, 2021. However, the obligee may file a “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” in the form of seeking confirmation only with respect to the existence of a “judicial claim” at the time the judgment in the prior suit becomes final and conclusive, and there is no need for ten-year lapse of the extinctive prescription period of the claim established by the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). The Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of a judicial claim in order to interrupt the prescription of the claim established by the judgment in the prior suit.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant rendered a judgment in a prior suit.