1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 199, the Plaintiff lent 106,000,000 won to the Defendant (the instant loan) and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed (C Law Firm Certificate No. 892, 1999) against this.

B. On August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment of the above loan with the Seoul Northern District Court 2007Ra8126, the Plaintiff received the payment order (the payment order in this case) from the Defendant, stating that “The Defendant shall be served with the Plaintiff KRW 106,00,000,000, and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from June 3, 1999 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case (the original copy of the payment order) and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date,” and the above payment order was served with the Defendant on November 12, 2007 and confirmed as it is.

C. On April 14, 201, the Defendant deposited KRW 1,000,000 on the Plaintiff’s bank account, and KRW 2,000,000 on April 30, 2013, respectively.

On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit again on the instant loan claims finalized by the instant payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous lawsuit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, the benefit of a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription may be acknowledged only where it is obvious that the ten-year ex

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). Since a final and conclusive payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act), the aforementioned legal doctrine also applies to the party who received the final and conclusive payment order.

On the other hand, Article 165(1) of the Civil Code shall be decided.