1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for the payment order with Daejeon District Court 2006Ka16838, and the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 39,400,000 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service date of the original copy of the payment order to the day of full payment” and around that time, the instant payment order became final and conclusive.

B. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the executive title of the instant payment order, was issued a collection order as the Daejeon District Court 2016TT15616, under which the Defendant, the garnishee C Co., Ltd., D Association, and E were issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is identical to the subject matter of the judgment in this case except where the damages for delay are partially reduced, and the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit in this case was brought for the purpose of the extension of the prescription period of claims based on the judgment in the previous suit in this case. Thus, we examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this

B. In a case where a party who received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, unless the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018), and such legal doctrine equally applies to the final and conclusive payment order.

Meanwhile, the interruption of prescription by “a seizure” among the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription may be deemed to have ceased to exist when the seizure is rescinded or when the enforcement procedure is terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017).