1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim with the Daegu District Court 2005da130098, and received a favorable judgment from the said court that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 27 million and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 21, 2005 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 22, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as "previous final and conclusive judgment"). (b)

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, based on the previous final judgment on September 2, 2015, executed a seizure of corporeal movables owned by the Defendant on the grounds that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to execute the said seizure on the grounds that the debtor did not reside and there was no movable possessed by the debtor.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of prescription due to the excessive expiration of the prescription period of the plaintiff's loan claims against the defendant based on the previous judgment.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987; 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). In addition, in a case where an execution procedure commenced but no movable property is subject to seizure, and it becomes impossible to execute the procedure, the statute of limitations is newly run from the time the execution procedure is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10044, May 13, 201). As to the instant case, health class and the previous final judgment are established.