1. The defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the facts and the purport of the entire arguments in this court, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the return of the security deposit against the defendant by the court 2008Da23662, Jan. 7, 2009, "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 50,000,000."

the facts that the first judgment became final and conclusive on February 14, 2009.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant bears the obligation to return 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims for the payment of damages for delay of the above deposit money.

However, the instant lawsuit is for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim for the return of deposit money according to the first judgment as seen below, and ① the Plaintiff delivered the object of deposit money to the Defendant and issued the documents necessary for the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment

or (2) did not assert or prove that the provision of the implementation is continuing.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is without merit.

2. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant's claim for the return of the deposit money due to the first judgment has expired by prescription.

The fact that the first judgment became final and conclusive on February 14, 2009 is as seen earlier, and the fact that ten years have elapsed from November 5, 2019, which was the date of the closing of argument, is apparent as the calendar.

However, since the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 10, 2019, which was before ten years elapsed from the date when the first judgment became final and conclusive, is apparent in the record, it shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the return of security deposit was suspended by the first judgment that became final and conclusive.

The plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is with merit, and the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.