The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A judicial claim does not have the effect of interrupting prescription in the case of dismissal, dismissal or withdrawal of a lawsuit (Article 170(1) of the Civil Act): Provided, That where a judicial claim, etc. is again filed within six months thereafter, the period of prescription shall be deemed interrupted by the first judicial claim (Article 170(2) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right which is the object of the lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending in the court, the court may, upon the party’s request, allow such third party to take over the lawsuit (Article 82(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Where the court has made a decision on taking over the lawsuit, the interruption of prescription takes effect retroactively from the first ongoing in the court (Articles 82(3) and 81 of the Civil Procedure Act). Where the plaintiff who transferred the right which is the object of the lawsuit, can withdraw from the lawsuit with the consent of the defendant after the court rendered a decision on taking over the lawsuit (Articles 82(3) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act).

However, the withdrawal of a lawsuit is different from the withdrawal of a lawsuit, and the judgment that took place in a lawsuit remaining after withdrawal has its effect on the withdrawing person (Article 82(3) and the proviso to Article 80 of the Civil Procedure Act). In light of the foregoing, in a case where the transferee’s acquisition of the subject-matter of lawsuit is denied, and the takeover of the subject-matter of lawsuit by the acquiring intervenor has again filed a judicial claim, etc., such as the previous withdrawal before withdrawal, it is reasonable to view that the interruption of prescription arising from a judicial claim filed by the

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the duly adopted evidence are included.