1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim under this Court Order 2009No6612.

On July 16, 2009, the court rendered a ruling ordering the Plaintiff to pay 49,514,550 won to the Defendant, and 5% per annum from May 16, 1999 to March 18, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant ruling”). The above ruling was finalized on August 26, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) claims based on the instant judgment. B.

On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Seoul Special Metropolitan City to issue a seizure and collection order concerning the Defendant’s right to claim the return of the lease deposit against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as the executive title of the instant judgment on July 9, 2018, and received the seizure and collection order on July 24, 2018. At that time, the original copy of the decision on the seizure and collection order was served to Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has yet to be repaid the claim of this case from the defendant.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed to extend the prescription period of the judgment deposit claim.

B. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where a party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in which the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said party in favor of the said party is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription has been interrupted after the judgment of the previous suit became final and conclusive, and the new extinctive prescription period is not imminent from the time when the cause of interruption ceases to exist.