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

2. The Plaintiff asserts as the cause of the instant claim that “The same lawsuit was filed for the interruption of prescription after receiving a final and conclusive judgment on the bonds listed in the specification of claims in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant bonds”) as the cause of the instant claim.”

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), a new card company, an assignment agency, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of credit card bills against the defendant (Seoul Northern Northern District Court 2008Gadan51608), and the above court rendered a judgment accepting the claim of the new card company on January 20, 2009, and on February 18, 2009, the above judgment became final and conclusive.

4. Where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, there is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Moreover, a successor to the party can enforce compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause. As such, the same applies to the instant claim established by the judgment. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, it is difficult to view that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired as of the date of closing argument of the instant case.

5. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect the rights.