1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party of the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006; 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987). Moreover, the payment order finalized has the same effect as the final and conclusive one.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant by asserting the same claim as the cause of the instant claim, and the payment order was issued on October 18, 2016 by Suwon District Court 2016Da2564, and it is recognized that the order was finalized on November 11, 2016.

Ultimately, the lawsuit of this case is brought against the same defendant by asserting that the plaintiff who received a final and conclusive payment order had the same claim, and there is no benefit in protecting the rights.

(2) The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case even though the payment order was finalized to identify the defendant's personal information, and the above reasons alone are not sufficient to recognize the interest of the lawsuit in this case).