The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 evidence, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court 2006 Ghana 45528, and received a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in part of the same contents as the purport of the claim. It can be acknowledged that the judgment became final and conclusive on July 3, 2007.

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on July 22, 2020 after the ten-year prescription period from the time the above judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the claim based on the above judgment had already been extinguished at the time of the lawsuit in this case, and the claim that has already been extinguished at the time of the lawsuit in this case, and cannot be again interrupted for the claim that has already been extinguished due to the completion of prescription. Thus, there is no benefit of lawsuit in this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the prescription has been interrupted because the Plaintiff filed an application for specification of property prescribed by the Civil Execution Act with Seoul Eastern District Court 2014 Kao, 3383, and thus, the period of prescription has been interrupted. However, if the obligee filed an application for specification of property as prescribed by the Civil Execution Act with respect to the obligor for the realization of the claim based on the final judgment and served on the obligor with the decision, the validity is recognized only as “the highest” which is the cause of interruption of prescription. Thus, the interruption of prescription by the decision on specification of property is deemed to be lost unless the procedure as prescribed in Article 174 of the Civil Act has been continued, such as filing a lawsuit within six months from the said decision or filing a provisional attachment or provisional disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Da32161, May 29, 2001; 2018Da26198, Dec. 13, 2018), and the Plaintiff filed an application for specification against the Defendant and served on the Defendant.

Even if there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff continued the procedure under Article 174 of the Civil Act, such as re-instigation of a lawsuit within six months from the plaintiff or seizure or provisional seizure, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.