The loan case between the plaintiff and the defendant is 2004Gahap3598 decided Feb. 18, 2005.

1. According to the evidence Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, in the case of loans between the plaintiff and the defendant 2004Gahap3598, the above court rendered a judgment on February 18, 2005 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 105,90,000 won and 25% interest per annum from July 1, 2004 to the day of full payment," and the above judgment was established on March 12, 2005.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion seeking confirmation that there is a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription based on the above final judgment is reasonable, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant asserts that, even if the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment on the order with false assertion, and there is no obligation to the Plaintiff. However, the subject matter of the lawsuit seeking the interruption of extinctive prescription as in the instant case is limited to the legal relationship with the interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to the specific claim for which judgment became final and conclusive, without excluding the existence and scope of the claim’s existence

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine the legitimacy thereof.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.