2. The plaintiff successor's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3...

A. On December 17, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the takeover amount (hereinafter referred to as “the previous lawsuit of this case”) with the Seoul District Court Decision 2001Da1403604, and was sentenced in favor of the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 28% per annum for KRW 6,942,364 and KRW 5,355,407 among them, from December 29, 2000 to the day of complete payment.”

B. On December 20, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the takeover amount (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) by this Court No. 2011Gada203854 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) and asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed to discontinue the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim pursuant to the judgment on the previous lawsuit.

C. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion against the instant previous suit. The Plaintiff transferred claims based on the judgment of the first instance court of the instant previous suit to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff at the appellate court of the instant previous suit.

After the judgment of the appellate court of the instant case (Seoul Central District Court 2014Na33290) rendered on April 30, 2015, “the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The Defendant is sentenced to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,942,364, and the amount calculated by the rate of 28% per annum from December 29, 200 to the date of full payment.” Although the Defendant filed an appeal (Supreme Court 2015Da34819), the Defendant was dismissed on August 31, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

E. On May 27, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor came to the trial for the first instance, and participated in the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties has res judicata effect, the parties are exceptionally bound to bring a new suit due to special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription.