1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the above judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in the loan case No. 2006Gahap5487, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap5487, but the defendant continued to be paid for the above claim, and the lawsuit of this case was filed for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the above judgment. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 105,60,000 won and delay damages

Preliminaryly, the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above judgment was completed.

Even if a claim for damages for delay is separate from an original claim, it is deemed that the damages for delay calculated from July 19, 2012 to July 19, 2017, less than five years retroactively from the date of the instant lawsuit, among damages for delay based on the above judgment, was not completed. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 105,60,000 for damages for delay during the said period.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the judgment ex officio, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for loans of KRW 105,600,000 as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap5487 and damages for delay thereof, and it can be acknowledged that the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2006 upon being sentenced to a favorable judgment on March 23, 2006 (hereinafter “pre-trial judgment”), and it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2017, which was ten years after the judgment on the pre-trial judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2006. As such, a claim based on the judgment on the pre-trial judgment had already expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed for the extension of extinctive prescription is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

In this regard, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is based on the completion of extinctive prescription, which was not asserted by the defendant, even though it was a party's defense.