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

A. On May 8, 2002, the trustee in bankruptcy filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate with the Daegu District Court 2002Kadan15100 on real estate owned by the Defendant with a loan claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “loan claim of this case”). On May 8, 2002, the trustee in bankruptcy filed a provisional seizure order with the above court and entered in the register around that time.

B. After that, on June 24, 2003, the Plaintiff received the transfer of the instant loan claim from the trustee in bankruptcy in bankruptcy in the Daecheon Credit Union, and on August 18, 2003, notified the Defendant of the transfer of claim, and the said notification was served around that time.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on July 1, 2004 against the Daegu District Court Decision 2004Ga7283, and received the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 1, 2004, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 11, 2004.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous final and conclusive judgment”). [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of prescription due to the excessive expiration of the prescription period of the loan claims against the defendant based on the previous judgment.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in a case where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of ex

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987; 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). In addition, while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, the provisional seizure shall be deemed as the exercise of the right by the creditor of provisional seizure.