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

A. On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the claim (principal principal KRW 130,759,750 and damages for delay) against the Defendant pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment in the Seoul Southern Southern District Court case No. 2012Gahap10204 (final and conclusive on December 19, 2012) from C, and C sent the notice of assignment to the Defendant as a content-certified mail on July 4, 2016.

B. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff was granted succession execution clause as a successor to the said final judgment as C.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff stated in the complaint that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that it is necessary to clarify the amount of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired, as it is necessary to clearly disclose the amount of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired, since C received some amount of money in the Suwon District Court D's case of compulsory auction of real estate that commenced

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit 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, and the final and conclusive judgment shall have effect on the parties, successors subsequent to the closure of pleadings, or persons possessing the subject matter of claim on their behalf (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff who acquired the claim pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, as a successor subsequent to

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit with the same subject matter of a final and conclusive judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting rights.

3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.