1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim suit against the Defendant, including a loan, etc., as Seoul Southern District Court 2005Kadan26059, and won the judgment of the Plaintiff, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 18, 2005.

Even after the above judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription as the Defendant did not pay money.

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

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in case where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the lawsuit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, in case where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive

(2) The court below's decision on October 18, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). The court below's decision on Oct. 21, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). The court below's decision on Oct. 21, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Nov. 18, 200).

Since the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is identical to the previous judgment of this case, it goes against the res judicata effect of the previous judgment of this case.

Furthermore, the instant lawsuit is apparent on the record that it was filed on September 12, 2016 after ten years from November 18, 2005 when the previous judgment became final and conclusive, and there is no proof to prove that the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the previous judgment was interrupted. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is imminent for the completion of the extinctive prescription.