1. In the case of loans between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Changwon District Court branching the Changwon District Court Decision 2009Kadan10736 Decided February 4, 2010.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of loans with the Changwon District Court Tongwon Branch Branch 2009Kadan10736, and on February 4, 2010, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 77,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from February 1, 2002 to the date of full payment”.

The above judgment was finalized on February 24, 2010.

On December 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a final and conclusive judgment claim.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, a “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible in the form of seeking confirmation only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance suit as a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and an obligee may select and bring an action that is more suitable for one’s situation and needs among the two types of lawsuits.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, the Plaintiff may seek confirmation that the instant lawsuit was instituted for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the said final judgment.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.