1. The defendant's KRW 150,000,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 1, 2005 to January 31, 2007, and the following.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap84442 agreement amounting to August 31, 2007, and the judgment of the court below that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 150 million won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 1, 2005 to January 31, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment."

2. As to the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription, the defendant asserts that the above 2006Gahap8442 case was conducted by service by public notice and the judgment was not properly disputed the lawsuit of this case on the wind which became final and conclusive, but in fact, the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that it is in fact deemed that the defendant would inflict a greater damage on the plaintiff'

However, even if there are special circumstances, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, a new suit based on the same subject matter as a final and conclusive judgment is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.

Therefore, in order to dispute the right relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the Defendant should first file an appeal for a lawful completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the res judicata should be extinguished. This does not change on the ground that the service of the copy of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment, etc. by service by public notice was not possible for the Defendant to bring an action against the previous suit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, in order for the Defendant to dispute the legal relationship that became final and conclusive by the said judgment in this lawsuit, first, in order to challenge the said legal relationship.