1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the attached Form.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). The extinctive prescription is interrupted by a judicial claim, seizure, etc. (Article 168 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act). In the event the prescription has been interrupted, the period of prescription that has lapsed shall not be included until the interruption thereof is terminated, but shall newly run from the time when the cause for interruption ceases to exist (Article 178(1) of the Civil Act); the period of prescription suspended due to a judicial claim, shall newly run from the time when

(2) According to the records and records, the judgment of winning the case on the price of goods was rendered on September 13, 2005 and confirmed on October 20, 2005 by the court 2005Gahap5969, which the plaintiff filed against the defendant, the White District Court 2011Tju, 11618, which applied for the defendant as the debtor, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, etc. as the title of execution by the plaintiff's winning judgment as the title of execution, and the statute of collection was issued on December 28, 201 and delivered to the defendant on January 31, 2012. Accordingly, according to the above winning judgment, the statute of limitations was interrupted by the seizure prior to the completion of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case cannot be seen as a case where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final judgment has expired, and thus, the benefit of the lawsuit is difficult.