1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Inasmuch as a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, unless it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, unless the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the person against the other party to

(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761 delivered on November 10, 1987, and 2005Da74764 delivered on April 14, 2006). The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant where the extinctive prescription period of the final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Northern District Court 2009Gadan21888) has expired.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and the delivery confirmation certificate of the above judgment submitted by the plaintiff, the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 15, 2009 due to the plaintiff's whole winning judgment rendered on September 24, 2009, and thus, the extinctive prescription under Article 165 (1) of the Civil Act is completed on October 15, 2019, which is ten years from that time.

Therefore, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant lawsuit does not fall under a case where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired, and thus, it is unlawful to protect the rights as there is no benefit of protecting the rights, and such defect cannot be corrected (the Plaintiff has made a unilateral assertion that the extinctive prescription period has expired even after the order of correction was issued by the court). Accordingly, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss the instant lawsuit without pleading.