The High Government District Court 2007da44326 (Main Office) and 208dada1050 (Counterclaim) between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for construction price as the High Government District Court Decision 2007Gadan44326, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff as the same court Decision 2008Gadan1050.

B. On June 23, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 58,762,587 won with 5% interest per annum from March 22, 2008 to June 23, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment."

On September 17, 2010, the Defendant filed an appeal, and the appellate court (the District Court Decision 2009Na9813, 2009Na9820, Counterclaim) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on September 17, 2010, which became final and conclusive on October 23, 2010.

C. On June 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the foregoing judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, a form of lawsuit seeking confirmation is also permissible only with respect to the existence of a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim established in a prior suit, other than a performance lawsuit (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). The Plaintiff may seek confirmation against the Defendant that the instant lawsuit had been filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, as seen earlier.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that he repaid some of the money by the plaintiff's order of seizure and collection, but since there was no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.