2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On January 21, 1999, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations under B when a credit transaction agreement is concluded between the former National Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter “National Bank”) and B after the merger.

(hereinafter “The instant loan” or “the instant joint and several sureties”). B.

On November 4, 2004, the National Bank transferred all of the instant loans (including joint and several guarantees) to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Mutual Savings Bank”) and notified the Defendant and B of the transfer on January 13, 2015.

C. Solomon Mutual Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and B seeking the payment of the instant loan and the joint and several sureties obligation, and on May 26, 2006, the court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant and B jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 41,312,536 and KRW 20,000,000 per annum 19% per annum from December 29, 2005 to the date of full payment” (Seoul Central District Court 2006Da115879). The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Around April 26, 2011, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank transferred all of the instant loans to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant and B of the transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, the entries in Gap's evidence 2 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings [the evidence No. 2 (Agreement on Credit Transactions) is presumed to have been authentic of the entire document due to the lack of dispute over the defendant's seal portion. The defendant defense to the effect that this document was forged by Eul, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it];

2. Determination

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, but exceptionally, the ten-year statute of limitations