1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On July 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the payment of goods with Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008Gadan11987, and on July 11, 2008, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 73,584,00 and the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from July 2, 2008 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 30, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and the main text of Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant brought the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the remainder, which remains after deducting the KRW 13 million repaid by the Defendant over 26 times from the date of the said judgment from the date of the said judgment, to June 2018, from the amount of judgment based on the previous judgment, for the interruption of extinctive prescription. We examine ex officio whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired clearly, there

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1761 delivered on November 10, 1987, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 delivered on April 14, 2006). B

As to the instant case, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the extinctive prescription of the judgment claim based on the preceding judgment of the instant case was interrupted at least on June 2018, which was the final repayment date of the Defendant, and subsequently resumed. As such, it cannot be deemed that the ten-year extinctive prescription period of the instant claim was imminent at the time of the closing of argument. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is subject to the protection of rights.