1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,371,740 and its amount from May 16, 2006 to June 16, 2007.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 2006, the Defendant drafted a letter of intent to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,371,740,00 not paid to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Seoul Southern District Court 2007Gaso20325, and on July 3, 2007, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff: “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5,371,740 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from May 16, 2006 to June 30, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 3, 2007.

C. The Defendant filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the same claim as the previous suit, asserting that the ten-year extinctive prescription period for a claim based on the foregoing final judgment is imminent, and that the interruption of extinctive prescription is necessary.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As a court examining a subsequent suit for interruption of extinctive prescription, barring special circumstances, 10 years have passed since the judgment in a prior suit became final and conclusive, barring such special circumstances as where the benefit of re-instigation of a lawsuit cannot be recognized as being re-existent for interruption of extinctive prescription as the period for interruption of extinctive prescription newly run from the time when the cause for interruption of extinctive prescription ceases to exist as the cause for

Even if there is no interest in the lawsuit immediately, the lawsuit shall not be dismissed, and the decision on whether the plaintiff's claim has become extinct due to the completion of extinctive prescription according to the defendant's defense as the debtor should be made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Da24349 Decided January 17, 2019). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the judgment of the preceding case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant became final and conclusive on August 3, 2007 is recognized as above. The record reveals that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 25, 2018, which was ten (10) years after the date the said judgment became final and conclusive.