1. On May 4, 2010, Incheon District Court 2010Kadan1837 against the Plaintiff’s Defendant in the case of construction cost.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the case of construction price in Incheon District Court 2010Kadan1837, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) on May 4, 2010, stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,182,000 until May 31, 2010. If the Defendant fails to pay the above amount by the payment date, it shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum from June 1, 2010 to the date of full payment.” The decision of recommending reconciliation of this case became final and conclusive at that time.

B. On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant decision recommending reconciliation.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to the cause of a claim, “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance suit, which is a subsequent suit for the interruption of prescription with respect to a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, and an obligee may select and file a suit that is more suitable for his/her situation and needs among the two types of

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the occurrence of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of the statute of limitations of claims against the Defendant based on the final and conclusive ruling on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the plaintiff transferred his claim pursuant to the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case to C and notified the defendant of the assignment of the above claim on June 20, 2010.

The substantive existence and scope of the claim is the subject matter of a new form of confirmation lawsuit.