1. The Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na93637 Decided April 17, 2008 extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 17, 2008, the appellate court of the claim for damages filed by C against the network D, etc., and was sentenced to a partial winning judgment on April 17, 2008 (Seoul High Court 2005Na93637), which became final and conclusive on May 9, 2008.

B. The deceased on November 18, 2018, and the deceased’s wife, E, F, G, and F’s wife, H, and I, the mother of the network D, solely inherited the deceased’s property by the Defendant, the wife of the network D, by giving up their inheritance.

(However, the defendant reported the qualified acceptance and received the judgment of acceptance).

On October 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 17, 2019 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim against the network D based on the foregoing final judgment.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3, each entry, which is obvious to this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking confirmation as to the filing of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above final judgment is well-grounded, and the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was partially unjustifiable since it was a qualified acceptance. However, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation for the interruption of extinctive prescription, substantive legal relations such as the existence and scope of a claim

It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting this.