1. The Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, 2009, 932 down payment return case between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On January 19, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 7,481,250 against the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Seoul District Court, 2009Daga932, the 7,481,250, and damages for delay. On April 9, 2009, the decision of performance recommendation by the court ordering the Defendant to pay the above amount (hereinafter “the decision of performance recommendation in this case”).

B. On March 31, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the instant order of performance recommendation with the instant court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. Determination on the cause of a claim 1) As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, a “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible in the form of seeking confirmation only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance suit, which is a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and an obligee may select and file a suit that is more appropriate than his/her own situation and needs among the two types of lawsuits (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018).

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of a judicial claim in this case as a subsequent suit to suspend the prescription of the claim established by the decision on performance recommendation of this case.

[A subsequent suit for the interruption of prescription, even if an action for performance was brought only after ten years have elapsed since the judgment in the prior suit became final and conclusive, the interest in the subsequent suit is not immediately denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da24349, Jan. 17, 2019). The same applies to a lawsuit seeking confirmation for the interruption of prescription.