The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, thereby citing this case as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The abbreviation of this court’s additional judgment is based on the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. The defendant's assertion in this court as the ground for appeal is that "the lawsuit in this case was filed after about seven months from the time the judgment on re-adjudication became final and conclusive, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the exception of six months equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act after the interruption of the right becomes final and conclusive. Even if the plaintiff re-appeals to abuse of rights, it should be limited in a short period, but there is no evidence to acknowledge "special circumstances existing in individual cases" where the plaintiff had no choice to exercise his right for the above six months. In particular, the plaintiff complied with the period of request for re-adjudication in the case of re-adjudication, and there is another claim for damages (Seoul Central District Court 2012Da157900, Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap527777, the same court 2013Gahap527777, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as exercising his right within six months from the time the judgment on re-adjudication becomes final and conclusive at the latest."

B. As cited earlier, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 18, 2016 after seven months have elapsed since December 23, 2015, for which the judgment of re-deliberation became final and conclusive.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 25 and 26 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff on August 23, 2010.