1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion Korea Phone Corporation filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of advertising price under the Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2001Da18671, Oct. 12, 2001, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2001. The said judgment became final and conclusive on Oct. 28, 2001, and the Plaintiff, who acquired the claim from the Korea Phonecom Co., Ltd., filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription period of the claim under the said final and conclusive judgment.

2. On its own initiative, filing a lawsuit seeking the payment of the same claim by a creditor who has already won a favorable judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights in principle. However, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 5, the Korea Phone Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Phone Board”) requested the seizure and collection order of each claim under the Gwangju District Court Order No. 2008, 2008, 2010, 3598 and 2012, 203, and 2012, and around June 20, 2008, around April 27, 2010, and around July 12, 2012, 2012, and each of the above orders of seizure and collection issued to the Defendant’s National Bank, Nonghyup Federation, etc., and around 201, each of the above orders of seizure and collection issued to the Defendant by public notice and around 2008.

According to the above facts, the statute of limitations on the above judgment amount claims shall be interrupted each service day of the above original copy, and eventually ten years have passed since August 22, 2012, which is the last service day.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for payment against the defendant is identical to the above judgment which has already become final and conclusive, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff's claim for the above judgment.