1. Claim based on the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court 2009Kadan12231 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

1. The facts of recognition that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants by this Court No. 2009Da12231, and received a favorable judgment on July 7, 2009, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 2009, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on July 30, 2019 for the interruption of prescription due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the said judgment upon the Plaintiff’s completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the said judgment, does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings

2. In a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, etc., a judgment obligee may file a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only with the confirmation that there was a “judicial claim” for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). The Plaintiff sought confirmation as to the existence of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above judgment. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified and recognized as well as the benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the decision to grant immunity was omitted from Seoul Rehabilitation Court in around 2014 and the Plaintiff’s claim was not known, and thus, the decision to grant immunity also extends to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the subject matter of a new form of confirmation lawsuit is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of extinctive prescription through a judicial claim for interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to a specific claim for which judgment became final and conclusive, without excluding the substantive existence and scope of the claim, and there is no need to examine the substantive legal relationship such as the existence and scope of the claim including the completion of extinctive prescription in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Accordingly, the Defendant’s

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.