1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The interest in the action shall be considered ex officio.

Unless there exist special circumstances, a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect and executory power, and there is no benefit in the same lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1888, Mar. 24, 1981). However, in a case where compulsory execution is practically difficult because the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent and it is difficult to enforce compulsory execution, a judicial claim with the same content is inevitable for the interruption of extinctive prescription regardless of whether it was possible to enforce compulsory execution prior to the final and conclusive judgment. Thus, even if a final and conclusive judgment exists, it cannot be deemed that the same lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription or the prohibition of double lawsuit is violated

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1761 Decided November 10, 1987). According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff was rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the same content as the instant case by the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2005Da14331 Decided 14, and the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2010 and agreed to repay in installments by June 27, 2012.

According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is newly undertaken on June 27, 2012, and there is no special circumstance to file a lawsuit identical to the Defendant, such as the lapse of the extinctive prescription period.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful.