1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has a claim based on the final judgment against the defendant, and that the extinctive prescription of the above claim is imminent, and that the lawsuit in this case was brought again for the interruption of prescription.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in cases where the other party in the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party in favor of one party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Busan District Court No. 2009DaGa205153, Dec. 14, 2009; and the above judgment became final and conclusive on Jan. 21, 2010 is recognized.

However, according to Articles 168 and 178 of the Civil Act, the statute of limitations shall be suspended by seizure, and the new statute of limitations shall run from the completion of the seizure procedure. According to the purport of the statement and the whole pleadings as to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the Busan District Court 2013TTT29930 with the above final judgment as executive title, and it is recognized that the plaintiff received the decision of acceptance on November 26, 2013.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant based on the above final judgment ought to be deemed to have been discontinued due to the decision of seizure of claim on November 26, 2013, and the progress of the statute of limitations was newly run. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the statute of limitations of the above claim was imminent as of the date of closing the argument in

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.