1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 27, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for reimbursement amounting to Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Ga7504, and the above court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2004, “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 54,314,090 won per annum 5% per annum from August 26, 2003 to April 8, 2004, and 20% per annum from April 9, 2004 to the day of full payment (hereinafter “the judgment before the instant lawsuit”). The judgment before the instant lawsuit became final and conclusive on May 15, 2004.

B. On March 24, 2010, after the judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff received a collection order and seizure of the claim against the Defendant, the third obligor, and the third obligor B, by designating the judgment of the previous suit of this case as the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6, 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. Article 165(1) of the Civil Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment shall be ten years, even where the claim constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription. Of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of prescription by “a seizure” among the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription shall be deemed to have ceased to exist when seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017). In the event extinctive prescription is interrupted, the period of prescription that has lapsed until interruption shall not be included in the short-term extinctive prescription

(Article 178(1) of the Civil Act. On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party shall be the other party.