1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant's KRW 600,000 and its relation to the plaintiff from January 1, 2006 to January 7, 2009.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea Phone Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Phone Board”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of advertising fees under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008 Ghana191, as it did not receive advertising fees even after receiving a request for advertising services from the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “prior action”). (b)

On January 14, 2009, the Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of the non-party company that "the defendant shall pay 600,000 won to the non-party company and 6% per annum from January 1, 2006 to January 7, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 4, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”) c.

On December 3, 2014, Nonparty Company transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff. On August 7, 2017, Nonparty Company notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to extend the prescription period of the instant claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party in favor of a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, in cases where a lawsuit against the other party in favor of a party in a prior suit is brought again against the same claim as the previous suit in favor of a final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. Provided, That in exceptional cases, the benefit of a lawsuit for interruption of prescription may be recognized only where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 206). The existence of

The claim of this case is returned to the case and pursuant to the prior suit.