1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in a case where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of ex

(1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant on May 19, 2003 against the defendant for the right to remove aggregate and the right to sell aggregate (No. 1761, Nov. 10, 1987; and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006; etc.). In full view of the entries and the purport of arguments as to Gap's evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the right to remove aggregate (No. 2003Da584, May 19, 2003; hereinafter "the prior suit of this case") and on October 9, 2003, it is evident that "the defendant had paid to the plaintiff KRW 170,000,000,000 and 2070,000,000,0000,000,0000,000 per annum from April 11, 2003).

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is brought again against the defendant, who is the other party to the lawsuit of this case, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and since the ten years have passed since the judgment became final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has already been determined, the benefit as a lawsuit for interruption of prescription cannot be recognized.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is unlawful.