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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, etc. that “B, etc. shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 4,63,455 won and 2,66,00 won among them at the rate of 23% per annum from August 1, 2003 to the date of full payment.” On August 31, 2004, the Plaintiff received a favorable judgment from the court and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 1, 2004.

B. B died on March 10, 2012, and the Defendant inherited B’s property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Gap evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff as the heir B with the money ordered by the above final judgment.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim was extinguished by the expiration of the five-year prescription period as a commercial claim.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s credit card payment claim against B by transfer of the Plaintiff’s credit card payment claim against the financial institution, which occurred on August 1, 2003 or became due, and it is obvious that the instant lawsuit was filed as a commercial bond and five years thereafter.

However, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B prior to the expiration of the above prescription period, and the facts that the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 1, 2004 were seen earlier, and thus, the above extinctive prescription was interrupted. However, even though the ten-year extinctive prescription has run again from the time the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case again on August 18, 2014, which is before the expiration of the prescription period, is clearly stated in the record, and thus, the above extinctive prescription has been interrupted again.

The plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is justified, and therefore the defendant's second defense cannot be accepted.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant.