2. The defendant's assertion pointing out that since the statute of limitations for the claim of this case has expired, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that ① the creditor financial institution's non-credit card-related claims (the date of loan commencement, October 24, 2002, October 25, 2005, the loan term expiration date, October 25, 2005, the loan amount of KRW 5.8 million) as to the payment order of June 4, 2009 was finalized on May 28, 2009, and ② the Seoul Central District Court's Decision 2007Da347853 Decided December 20, 207, the creditor financial institution's creditor financial claims, became final and conclusive on December 11, 2008.

The fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed on October 20, 2017, before the ten-year period of extinctive prescription as stipulated in Article 165(1) of the Civil Act, from the date on which each of the above titles became final and conclusive is clearly recorded. Thus, the defendant's assertion of extinctive

(3) In light of the above, even if the defendant was to bear the obligation related to the national bank due to the fraud in B, such circumstance alone alone is insufficient to exempt the third party from the obligation to the financial institution, which is the third party, and it is not permissible to dispute the existence of the obligation on the ground that it had already existed at the time of the above decision No. 2007DaDa347853, and it is not in conflict with the res judicata effect).