1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On July 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order with the Gwangju District Court 2006 tea 2120,000. The above court rendered a decision on September 20, 2006 that the original copy of the payment order was not served on the Defendant (the above court 2006 Ghana 2980).

(2) On November 18, 2006, the above court rendered a judgment on December 21, 2006 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 20% interest per annum from November 19, 2006 to the day of full payment."

(3) On May 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal with the Gwangju District Court No. 2018Na2147 against the foregoing judgment and is pending in this court.

B. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the claim based on the Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Gau75419, Gwangju District Court 2006Gau2980, Seocheon-si, Busan District Court 2006Gau2980.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the case pending before the court making ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, neither party shall institute any lawsuit again.

(1) Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In a case where a lawsuit with the same subject matter of lawsuit has been filed differently, the subsequent suit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed against the prohibition of duplicate filing unless the previous suit is extinguished due to the rejection of withdrawal, etc. by the time the argument in the subsequent

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23066, Nov. 14, 2017). According to the above facts, following the Defendant’s appeal on June 21, 2019, which is the date of closing argument in the trial, the preceding case (this court 2018Na2147) is pending in the lawsuit, and the preceding case and this case are both identical to the parties, and thus, the instant lawsuit, which is the subsequent suit, constitutes duplicate litigation.