1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,476,421 and interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from September 11, 1999 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the purchase price, and the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment on November 3, 1999 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,476,421 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from September 11, 1999 to the date of full payment" (99No51705). The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 1, 1999.

(2) On May 13, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 35,476,421 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from September 11, 1999 to the date of full payment” (2010da73749). The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 29, 2010.

(3) On January 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription of the foregoing claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of extinctive prescription after ten years have passed again from the time the judgment on the above claim became final and conclusive. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,476,421 as recognized in the judgment on the previous suit and delay damages.

2. The defendant's assertion is aware that the plaintiff received money from the hotel side, and there is no amount of claim payable to the plaintiff.

In doing so, it is alleged that there was no time to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim at the time of delivery of the court litigation document prior to the ten-year period, by asserting that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, the lawsuit of this case is for the extension of extinctive prescription against a claim for which judgment has become final and conclusive, and it cannot be asserted that a claim for which existence has become final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment has not been established.