A. On February 4, 1997, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 70,000,000 to D, the representative director of C, a corporation, as interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month; and (b) the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations.

(hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case". (b)

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the instant loan.

On May 12, 2006, the court rendered a ruling that "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 70 million won with 18% interest per annum from February 4, 1997 to September 15, 2005, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment" and the above ruling was finalized on July 19, 2006.

(In the final judgment of Busan District Court 2004Kadan145221, hereinafter "the final judgment of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 70 million won with 18% interest per annum from February 4, 1997 to September 15, 2005 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment according to the plaintiff's order of this case filed for the extension of the prescription period of the final judgment of this case.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not lend the loan of this case to C's representative director D who is the principal debtor.

Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, filing a subsequent suit between the same parties with respect to the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous

In addition, it is against res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit to seek a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the method of attack and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the previous suit in the previous suit on the same subject matter.