1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On October 6, 2008, this court issued a payment order (this Court 2008 tea 11450, hereinafter "the instant payment order") to the effect that "the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million and 20% interest per annum from March 5, 2009 to the date of full payment."

The instant payment order was finalized on March 19, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination on the legality of the instant lawsuit

A. As the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is completed immediately, we seek confirmation that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

B. (1) If a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, only a lawsuit seeking confirmation that there was a “judicial claim” for the interruption of extinctive prescription can be brought.

Lawsuits in such a method (hereinafter referred to as “new form of litigation”) were newly permitted by Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018.

The rules on the recognition of civil procedure, etc. (Supreme Court Regulations No. 2827, Jan. 29, 2019) also stipulate a new form of litigation as “litigation seeking confirmation only for the existence of a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment”.

(2) The final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect in the final and conclusive judgment, and the decision made by the written decision shall not be changed in the later filed lawsuit unless it is revoked by the retrial.

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316 states that the existence and scope of the claim is unreasonable because of the reason that new form of lawsuit should be allowed.

(3) Unlike the judgment, the payment order has an executory power, but has no res judicata effect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966 Decided July 9, 2009, etc.). Only a payment order becomes final and conclusive.