1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

As to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case ex officio, we examine the following: (a) although the defendant withdrawn the defense of this case from the third date for pleading, the legal requirements of the lawsuit are matters to be ex officio by the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da21589, Nov. 23, 1990). As the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant has res judicata effect, in cases where the party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant files a lawsuit identical to the prior suit in favor of the other party of the previous suit, then the subsequent suit is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006).

According to the overall purport of the records and pleadings, the Plaintiff (A) filed an application against the Defendant for the same payment order as the instant lawsuit with the Suwon District Court 2009j1947, Suwon District Court 2009Da1947, and it can be recognized that the payment order became final and conclusive on June 11, 2009 because the Defendant did not raise an objection despite being served with the original copy of the instant payment order. Even as of August 11, 2016, which is the date of closing argument of the instant case, even if based on August 11, 2016, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the instant payment order remains more than two years and ten months, and thus, the ten-year lapse

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit in protecting the rights.