The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed.

The plaintiff's judgment against the defendant B is delivered on August 19, 2009.

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is lawful or not, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the claim for the trial in order to suspend the interruption of the prescription of the claim based on the judgment of the construction cost case No. 2008Gadan3276 Decided August 19, 2009 (hereinafter “instant claim”) against Defendant C.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit again against the other party as to the same claim as the previous lawsuit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, then the lawsuit is not

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year prescription period of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in legal proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). Moreover, as a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription, a new form of lawsuit seeking confirmation is allowed only for the fact that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). The following facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

On March 6, 2020, Defendant C filed a subsequent suit against the judgment on the construction cost case No. 3276 of this Court Order 2008Ga, and the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment on December 3, 2020 on the above appeal case (former District Court Order 2020Na2130) and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2020.

According to this, the period of prescription of the claim of this case is newly run from December 24, 2020, which became final and conclusive by the above appellate court judgment (Article 178(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, the ten-year period of prescription, which is the extinguished prescription, does not constitute the case where the ten-year period of prescription has expired.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C does not constitute exceptional cases where there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation for the interruption of prescription.

The plaintiff's defendant C.