1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

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

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(1) As to the interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of extinctive prescription, which has lapsed until interruption, is not included in the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Meanwhile, in the event the interruption of prescription is interrupted, the interruption of prescription by the seizure among the interruption of extinctive prescription can be deemed to have expired when the seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is terminated.

(2) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and non-party C for the claim for the amount of money taken over from the Jeonju District Court military branch office 2009da1738, Sep. 11, 2009. The above court rendered the judgment that "the defendant jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for 86,000,000 won and for this amount, C shall be 25% per annum from February 28, 1998 to April 23, 2009; the defendant was 20% per annum from February 28, 1998 to April 28, 1998 to April 1, 209; 20% per annum from February 1, 2009 to April 1, 2009 to April 1, 2009; 30% per annum and 20% per annum from the debtor; 2009.