1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the loan under Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Kadan58341, and the said warden was served by public notice to the Defendant.

On April 2, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 80 million won with 5% interest per annum from December 31, 2005 to February 18, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 21, 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant prior suit judgment”). (b)

On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period of the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit.

C. On May 22, 2019, the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the instant judgment by Seoul Eastern District Court 2019Na1291, and the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed” on February 12, 2020, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 3, 2020.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Inasmuch as a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the pertinent lawsuit has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive judgment regarding the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, in cases where the relevant party who received the final and conclusive judgment files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party, the subsequent

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the same claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription on the premise that the claim based on the judgment on the instant prior suit became final and conclusive on April 21, 2010. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was formally going through service by public notice.