1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

Where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party institutes a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of a final and conclusive judgment, in principle, the subsequent suit is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). In full view of the health care room, Gap evidence No. 1, and the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court as to this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants in Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Da6060 Decided September 14, 2005, and the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff with the same content as the contents stated in the purport of the claim on April 13, 2006, and it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 2, 2006.

However, since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 12, 2016, even after ten years have elapsed since the date when the said judgment became final and conclusive, the instant lawsuit is filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription after the expiration of extinctive prescription, and is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

2. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.