1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the instant lawsuit had been filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the instant notarial deed.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is allowed only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to performance litigation as a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on such judgment, namely, a “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” (hereinafter “relevant Supreme Court en banc Decision”) (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018).

[See] However, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion, the claim seeking confirmation that the plaintiff has a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription does not constitute a claim established by judgment based on the Notarial Deed, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the "new form of litigation seeking confirmation" is permissible.

[Attachment to a final judgment in favor of the Supreme Court, since a notarial deed has an executory power and has no res judicata effect, it is more beneficial to bring an action identical to the contents of the notarial deed in order to obtain a judgment which has res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da22795, 22801, Mar. 8, 196). Thus, even if an obligee in a notarial deed files a performance suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, it cannot be deemed that there is no practical benefit or need to allow “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” as the reason for allowing “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” as stated in the relevant Supreme Court’s judgment, and it is difficult to deem that there is a practical problem in the performance lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription. This case’s lawsuit is unlawful