1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

As to the lawsuit of this case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of claims pursuant to a final judgment of Cheongju District Court 2004Kadan19760, 200, ex officio, the

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as

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.

(1) As to the interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of extinctive prescription, which has lapsed until interruption, is not included in the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Meanwhile, in a case where extinctive prescription is interrupted, the interruption of prescription by “a seizure” among the interruption of extinctive prescription, can be deemed to have expired when the seizure is rescinded or the execution procedure is completed.

(2) According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s respective evidence Nos. 2014Da45317, Nov. 26, 2015 (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317, Nov. 26, 2015), the Plaintiff’s judgment against the Defendants became final and conclusive on December 23, 2004; and the Plaintiff’s judgment based on the said final and conclusive judgment, issued a seizure and collection order on the Defendant’s deposit claims against the third parties, including B/C District Court 2014TBD, and issued a collection order on May 23, 2014.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants based on the final judgment was suspended due to the seizure and collection order dated May 21, 2014, and there is no evidence to deem that the instant seizure and collection order was revoked or the execution procedure was terminated.