1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from June 1, 2007 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of loans of KRW 40 million and delay damages (hereinafter "the previous lawsuit of this case") with the Jung-gu District Court 2007Da28901, and on September 19, 2007, the above court received a favorable judgment (hereinafter "the final judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case") from the above court that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40 million won and interest thereon an amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 1, 2007 to the day of complete payment" (hereinafter "the final judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case"). The final judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case becomes final and conclusive on November 20, 2007, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the above final judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case from 30 million won to 205% per annum.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that although the plaintiff did not borrow money from the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim since the plaintiff filed the previous suit in this case by using the forged loan certificate as evidence.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, however, even if the new suit is exceptionally permitted due to special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, the judgment in the previous suit does not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Thus, the court in the subsequent suit cannot review whether all the requirements to assert the established right have been satisfied (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da1645, Jun. 12, 1998).