1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff filed an application for a loan payment order with the Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea42319 against the defendant on June 18, 2007, stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 42,750,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the full payment day" (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"), and that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the purpose of the extension of prescription due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription after the expiration of the payment order in this case.

On the other hand, examining the legitimacy of a lawsuit ex officio, filing a lawsuit seeking payment of the same claim by a creditor who has already won a favorable judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights in principle. However, the benefit of protection of rights is recognized only in the case of filing a lawsuit for extension of prescription due to the excessive completion of extinctive

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 in this case, since the date on which the payment order of this case against the plaintiff's defendant was finalized on July 13, 2007, the starting date of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above payment order shall be July 14, 2007. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is obvious in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 8, 2017, which was ten years after it was filed, and there is no other evidence to deem that the prescription has been interrupted.

Therefore, since a claim against the defendant under the payment order of this case was already extinguished before the lawsuit of this case, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful since there is no benefit of protecting the right to seek an extension of prescription, and thus, it is so ordered as per Disposition.