1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit

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.

(1) In light of the records and arguments of this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant at around November 9, 2004 against Suwon District Court Decision 2004Da74764 decided Apr. 14, 2006, etc. In light of the overall purport of the records and arguments of this case, it is evident that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for loans at around November 9, 2004 by the above court "1,031,580,000 won" and the amount at 20% per annum from September 30, 2004 to the full payment date. It is recognized that the above judgment was finalized on Sep. 30, 2004, and the above judgment was filed on Dec. 3, 2004 after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of 10 years from the date the above judgment became final and conclusive.

According to the above facts, the instant lawsuit is filed against the Defendant again with the same content, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights in principle, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on January 23, 2019 after the lapse of ten years from December 3, 2004 when the said judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, there is no benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exceptionally permissible pursuant to the above legal doctrine.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant approved the debt or renounced the prescription benefit before and after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, but it is reasonable to recognize the same only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 4.