1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts as stated in the grounds for the claim, and claims against the defendants for the payment of the acquisition amount stated in the claim.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act, in cases where a party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has become final and conclusive files a lawsuit identical to a prior suit in which a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has become final and conclusive, barring special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, and thus, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Pursuant to Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a final and conclusive judgment has effect on a successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, a successor subsequent to the pronouncement of a judgment) and Article 58(1) of the Civil Procedure Act also provides, “Compulsory execution based on a final and conclusive payment order shall be carried out by the original copy of the payment order without need to obtain the execution clause: Provided, That in the case of compulsory execution for the party’s successors (Article 58(1)2), compulsory execution may be carried out by accepting the execution clause in the case of compulsory execution for the party’s successors, the transferee of a claim based on the payment order

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, D Co., Ltd. received a payment order from the Seoul Central District Court on April 26, 2017, stating that “The amount of KRW 84,534,340 and delay damages shall be paid,” and the above payment order was served on the Defendants on May 1, 2017, and on the 16th day of the same month.