1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On November 13, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant by filing a lawsuit claiming the return of defraudation money by the Gwangju District Court 2007Kadan17333, and was sentenced to the judgment of November 13, 2007, stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 33,60,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 25, 2007 to the date of complete payment” (hereinafter “judgment in a prior suit”).

However, since the defendant did not pay the above money at all, and the ten-year extinctive prescription for the claim based on the judgment in a prior suit is complete, it is again seeking a judgment, such as the purport of the claim.

2. According to each of the statements in the health section, No. 1, and No. 2-1 and No. 2 as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on November 13, 2007 in the lawsuit of demanding the return of the money acquired by deception against the Defendant filed by the Plaintiff on November 13, 2007, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2007.

A final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect and there is no benefit in the protection of rights, in principle, to file a lawsuit again with the same content as to a final and conclusive claim, and exceptionally, a suit seeking interruption of extinctive prescription of the established claim has benefit in the lawsuit notwithstanding res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment. Since the claim based on the judgment in the previous suit is apparent in fact that the extinctive prescription has already been completed on December 7, 2017, the date of the lawsuit in the previous suit, and thus, there is no benefit in the protection

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.