1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendants in order to interrupt extinctive prescription of the final judgment in the Incheon District Court 2005Kadan83408 claim amount. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party in the same lawsuit as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018. Meanwhile, Article 168 of the Civil Act prescribing provisional seizure as a cause suspending extinctive prescription may be deemed to have been exercised by an obligee by provisional seizure. As such, the effect of interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure continues while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure continues to exist.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18622, 18639, Nov. 14, 2013). In addition, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides for a separate cause of interruption of prescription as to claims subject to provisional attachment and a judicial claim under Article 168 of the same Act. In light of the foregoing, even if a favorable judgment on the merits regarding claims subject to provisional attachment became final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription by provisional attachment cannot be said

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da11102 delivered on April 25, 200). According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to this case, the Plaintiff is the heir of the network E on the ground that the Plaintiff has a total claim of KRW 244,04,424 (hereinafter “instant claim”) against the network E, which is a joint and several surety of F, on the ground that the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement of KRW 244,04,424.