1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the instant claim, “each of the claims stated in the grounds of the instant claim (hereinafter “attached Form”) filed the same lawsuit to suspend prescription after having received a final and conclusive judgment on each of the claims in the instant case.”

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants as the cause of the claim of each of the claims of this case (Seoul Central District Court 2005Da113322), and the above court rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on September 29, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 22, 2005, and on September 20, 2010, the defendant A corporation paid 419,440 won to the plaintiff on September 20, 2010.

4. There is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription only where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired for a claim based on the final judgment.

(2) The Defendant Company A, the primary debtor, constitutes the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription, and thus, the prescription period of each of the instant claims was interrupted on September 20, 2010. Since each of the instant claims remains more than four years after the date of the closure of pleadings, it is difficult to view that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has elapsed since each of the instant claims remains more than four years after the date of the closure of pleadings.

5. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect the rights.