1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription was imminent, in a lawsuit claiming loans and equipment usage fees filed by Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201Kadan63878, which was concluded on March 16, 2012.

If conciliation is established, the conciliation protocol has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da78732, Apr. 26, 2007). Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, in cases where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party to the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the prior suit in which the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit was rendered, barring any special circumstance, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting the rights. However, barring any special circumstance, in exceptional cases where the ten-year lapse

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the extinctive prescription of a claim under the instant conciliation protocol is calculated from March 16, 2012, which is the date the conciliation thereof is completed, and the ten-year period of extinctive prescription is imminent as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.