On August 26, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010 Ghana 240754 Decided August 26, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the heir Defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment against I that “I shall pay to the Plaintiff 152,959,071 won and 39,99,849 won, 21% per annum from June 18, 2010 to the date of full payment, 45,000 won per annum 16.05% per annum from June 19, 2010 to the date of full payment” (the Seoul Central District Court loans 2010DaGa240754). The judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2010.

B. On October 12, 2019, I died, and the Defendants are the inheritors of I.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As a subsequent suit for interruption of prescription, a creditor may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation in the form of seeking confirmation only with respect to the existence of a judicial claim for the interruption of prescription for a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, other than a performance lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, the creditor, may seek confirmation against the Defendants, the heir of I, who are the Plaintiff, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010DaGa240754, Aug. 26, 2010.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, since the Defendants were granted immunity from the court on December 14, 2015, including the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendants were exempted from the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2014, 3227, e.g., the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff).

The argument is asserted.

A form of confirmation lawsuit seeking confirmation only against the existence of a claim in a trial for the interruption of prescription is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of prescription through a claim in a trial for the interruption of prescription with respect to a specific claim for which judgment has become final and conclusive, while the substantive existence and scope of the claim is excluded.

The judgment does not have the effect of the statute of limitations in addition to the interruption of the claim established by the judgment in a prior suit.