1. The loan case No. 2009 tea5944 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was dated December 18, 2009.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for the issuance of an order for payment with the Jung-gu District Court senior branch office 2009 tea5944, and the above court issued a payment order with “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from KRW 100,000,000 to the date of full payment.” The above payment order became final and conclusive on January 13, 2010, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the above claim on February 3, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of the existence of the filing of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the prior judgment is with merit, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's claim based on the payment order was already completed at the time the defendant's claim was filed, and the defendant should be exempted from liability because it is a state in which the defendant filed an application for personal bankruptcy.

B. As in the instant lawsuit, the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking interruption of extinctive prescription is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim for interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to a specific claim for which judgment became final and conclusive, with the exclusion of the substantive existence and scope of the claim, and the judgment does not have the legal effect in addition to the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim established by judgment in a prior suit. As such, there is no need to review the existence of a claim

A court shall deliberate and recognize only the fact that a judgment in a prior suit became final and conclusive as the cause of a claim and the fact that a subsequent suit is filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be examined in the instant case and is therefore justified.