1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim as to the claim No. 2 of the debt list No. 2 stated in the separate claim cause.

1. Determination ex officio as to the claim part concerning the claim against the claim No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2 in the lawsuit of this case (hereinafter “instant claim No. 2”).

A. Ex officio, we examine the legality of the claim part of the instant claim 2 in the instant lawsuit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that “The same lawsuit was filed for the interruption of prescription after receiving a final and conclusive judgment on the instant two claims” as the cause of the instant claim.

C. According to the evidence No. 2-2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of the claim under the Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Gaso172955, which is the cause of the claim, and the above court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on March 19, 2008, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exists only in cases where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Since the ten-year extinctive prescription period as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case remains approximately one year and nine-month, it is difficult to view that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.

E. Ultimately, the claim part of the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, determination as to the claim against the claim No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet stating the cause of the claim (hereinafter “instant claim No. 1”).

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-5, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-1, and 3-5, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 22, 2015, which is the day following the calculation of the final damages for delay, with respect to the sum of principal and interest of the instant one claim KRW 29,859,593, and the balance of principal KRW 10,00,000 among the principal and interest of the instant one claim.

(b) therefore.