1. The judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gadan280476 delivered on November 13, 2008 against the Plaintiff’s Defendant is rendered.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim against the bill of exchange (Seoul Central District Court 2008Ga280476) and the above court rendered the lawsuit on November 13, 2008, "the defendant won with respect to 30,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won among them, 60% per annum from July 2, 1998 to June 29, 2007; 30% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment until the day of full payment; 60% per annum from August 25, 1998 to June 29, 2007 to June 29, 2007 to the day of full payment; 30% per annum from the next day to June 29, 2007 to the day of full payment (the judgment of this case 20% per annum; hereinafter "the judgment of this case") became final and conclusive.

B. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order of the claim 12824 from the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court 2011) on the title of enforcement of the instant judgment, and the said order became final and conclusive around that time.

(c)

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 19, 2020 for the interruption of prescription.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As a subsequent suit for interruption of prescription, a “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is allowed 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 interruption of prescription, that is, a “judicial claim,” and an obligee may select and file a suit that is more suitable for one’s own situation and needs among the two types of lawsuits.

The Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of the instant lawsuit in order to suspend the prescription of the instant claim against the Defendant based on the final and conclusive

B. The defendant against this case's claim.