1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Case progress

A. On May 2, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Incheon District Court 2007da127580, demanding the payment of the loan of KRW 2,150,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 3, 2007 to the date of full payment.

The above case was proceeded by public notice against the defendant, and the above court rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on November 30, 2007 and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the same lawsuit against the Defendant in order to prevent the extinction of the prescription period of monetary claims based on the said final judgment.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the relevant legal doctrine has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party, the subsequent

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

Furthermore, in such a case, the judgment of the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all requirements are satisfied to assert the established right.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). (B)

In this case, the lawsuit of this case is lawful since the ten-year statute of limitations has elapsed since the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit was rendered.

Next, the defendant has a defense that he had already repaid the money claimed by the plaintiff around March 2005.

However, as seen earlier, insofar as the judgment in a prior suit became final and conclusive as the monetary claim against the defendant exists, the claim shall be limited.