1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 28,755,00 and KRW 13,550,280 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 9,20 on February 9, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Da30633 Decided June 17, 2008, the Plaintiff is entitled to the Defendant’s payment of KRW 16,422,550 and the amount calculated at the rate of 16% per annum from March 26, 2007 to May 31, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

B) The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 23, 2008. (c) As of February 8, 2017, the sum of KRW 13,550,280, interest and overdue interest in the instant bonds total of KRW 15,204,720 ( KRW 1,837,060, KRW 13,367,660) remains unpaid. [No evidence No. 5, 7, and evidence No. 9, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination on the benefit of protection of rights

A. The court of first instance rejected the instant lawsuit on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the statute of limitations of the instant claim was imminent, by deeming that there was no benefit in the protection of rights. Accordingly, we first examine the legitimacy thereof.

B. The fact that the instant claim is based on the final judgment, and the fact that the date on which the final judgment became final and conclusive is as of July 23, 2008 is the same as above, therefore, the instant claim is based on the final and conclusive judgment and becomes subject to the ten-year extinctive prescription, and therefore, it is apparent that the extinctive prescription is completed on July 23, 2018.

C. Thus, around April 27, 2018, which is the date of the closure of the arguments in the instant case, it appears that there was a benefit of protecting the rights of the instant lawsuit to prevent the completion of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the lawsuit of this case has no interest in protecting rights should be revoked unfairly.

E. However, the data submitted in this case is examined to the extent that the first instance court can render a judgment on the merits of the case.

Therefore, the proviso of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act is applied.