2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 24, 2003, B Co., Ltd. sold freezing 155,000,000, which was imported from China, to C, and the Defendant as the representative director of C Co., Ltd. jointly and severally guaranteed the payment obligation.

B. B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C on the claim for the purchase price that was not paid in Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005Gahap6976, and the above court rendered a judgment on June 23, 2006 that “the Defendant and C shall jointly and severally pay to B corporation KRW 99,00,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from May 17, 2005 to June 23, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the judgment (hereinafter “final judgment of this case”) became final and conclusive on August 20, 206.

C. On August 24, 2009, B transferred the claim under the final judgment of this case to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim on August 28, 2009, and the notification reached the Defendant around that time.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 8 through 11, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Inasmuch as a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the final and conclusive judgment regarding the lawfulness of a lawsuit has res judicata effect, barring special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). The final and conclusive judgment also has effect on the successors subsequent to the closure of pleadings (see Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the aforementioned facts and the foregoing legal principles, the final and conclusive judgment in this case shall have effect on the Plaintiff who acquired the claim under the final and conclusive judgment after the closure of pleadings. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant in this case does not meet the requirements for protection of rights

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on February 13, 1979