1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants on August 21, 2007 (U.S. District Court 2007Kadan69519). On March 12, 2008, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and interest rate of 20% per annum from December 9, 2007 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case is confirmed as it becomes final and conclusive on April 3, 2008.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the extension of the prescription period of the judgment of this case. We examine whether the lawsuit against the defendants is legitimate or not.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party of the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). We examine the facts that the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on April 3, 2008, as seen earlier, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 17, 2018, which was ten years after the lawsuit of this case was filed.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is filed again against the Defendants, who are the other party to the lawsuit, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights. Since the ten years have passed since the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment is complete, the benefit of the lawsuit for the extension of prescription cannot be recognized.