1. The Incheon District Court Decision 2009Gahap865 delivered on January 28, 2010 against the Defendant and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 28, 2010, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) for the payment of goods under the Incheon District Court Decision 2009Gahap8655, and rendered a judgment on January 28, 2010 that “the Defendant jointly and severally pays to the Plaintiff 6% per annum from January 1, 2007 to April 28, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The Defendants appealed from Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na25768, but the judgment of October 7, 2010 became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010.

B. Defendant C, on December 21, 201, filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court Decision 201Hau7272, 201Hau 7271, 7271, and was granted immunity from the above court on February 11, 2014, and the above decision was finalized on February 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and the principal claim against the defendant C

A. On the other hand, in a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, etc., a creditor may file a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only with the confirmation that there was a “judicial claim” for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). According to the above facts of recognition, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of this case brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the judgment of this case is a benefit of confirmation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants of this case is with merit.

B. As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C was granted immunity as above, the instant lawsuit is confirmed.