1. The Plaintiff’s case concerning the Defendants of the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court (2010Gahap3581, Sept. 14, 2010) is an agreed amount.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the agreed amount under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2010Gahap3581.

On September 14, 2010, the Busan District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) that “The Defendant jointly and severally rendered a favorable judgment of KRW 300 million against the Plaintiff, from March 1, 2006 to June 15, 2010, Defendant C shall pay 5% per annum to the Plaintiff, Defendant B shall pay 20% per annum to July 22, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment was each finalized on October 12, 2010 against the Defendant C and October 29, 2010 against the Defendant C.

B. After the instant judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 19, 2020, which was before ten years elapse, which was the extinctive prescription period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription as to the cause of a claim, “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance suit, which is a subsequent suit for the interruption of prescription for a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, and an obligee may select and file a suit that is more suitable for one’s own situation and needs among the two types of lawsuits.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of a judicial claim against the Defendants based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case in order to interrupt the statute of limitations of the agreed amount claim.

B. The summary of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion 1 is that Defendant C entered Defendant B, who is an son, together with the Plaintiff at the time when Defendant C made a written agreement, but Defendant B did not attend the meeting and is also aware of the content.