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

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff filed the same lawsuit for the interruption of prescription after receiving a final and conclusive judgment on each claim listed in the specification of claims stated in the attached Form.

3. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including various numbers), each of the financial institutions listed in the credit specification table can be acknowledged as having received a final and conclusive judgment of winning the claims listed in the credit specification No. 3 and No. 4 of the claim specification table by the judgment of the Changwon District Court on July 5, 2011. On July 22, 2010, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gau247024 decided on July 22, 2010, as to the claims listed in the claim specification No. 2 of the claims specification No. 2008Gau4038 decided on July 208.

4. Where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, there is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Each claim recorded in the specification of claims established by a judgment in the specification of claims established by the judgment remains more than two to five years, and it is difficult to view that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired as of the date of the closing of the instant argument

5. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect the rights.