1. A decision on a loan case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant rendered on February 13, 2009 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da172261 Decided February 13, 2009.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entry and pleading as to No. 1, the judgment was rendered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2009 (the instant lawsuit was filed on July 29, 2019 and its extinctive prescription has not yet expired), and the fact that there was a judicial claim to interrupt the prescription can achieve the purpose of interrupting prescription by seeking confirmation.

Since there is a benefit to seek confirmation, the plaintiff's claim shall be quoted on the ground of its reason, but the plaintiff shall bear the cost of lawsuit by applying Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The costs of lawsuit under the current law are borne by the losing party and the execution cost by the obligor, while the main text of Article 473 of the Civil Act provides that the obligor shall bear the reimbursement cost. Therefore, the ordinary cost of managing and preserving the obligor’s property (e.g., the cost incurred by the obligee to ascertain the obligor’s property) that is not included in the scope of such cost is reasonable for the obligee to bear (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018)