Therefore, the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is liable to pay the money and delay damages indicated in the order to the plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s joint and several surety agreement, which is the cause of a final judgment in the previous suit, was mandatorily concluded solely on the ground that it is the spouse of the principal obligor, and thus, the instant claim is unreasonable.

However, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, in exceptional circumstances such as the interruption of prescription, the judgment in a new suit shall be exceptionally permissible. In such a case, the judgment in a previous suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to assert

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability claim against the Defendant in a final and conclusive judgment on October 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). Therefore, insofar as the existence of the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability claim against the Defendant is confirmed in the final and conclusive judgment on the previous suit, the Defendant may not

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Next, the defendant asserts that he has no ability to repay by filing a petition for bankruptcy with the court, but such reason is not a legal ground for refusing the plaintiff's claim.