A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for a loan claim with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Kadan1166. On April 27, 2010, the above court rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 295,440,000 and KRW 210,000,000 per annum from December 30, 2009 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant ruling”), and the above ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 9,347,942 on the basis of the right to collateral security with the loan obligation that was ordered to be paid in the instant judgment during the auction procedure for the auction of the real estate rent C by Goyang-gu District Court (Seoul District Court).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and a statement of the purport of the whole pleadings

A. According to res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment, a party cannot bring a new suit based on the same subject-matter of a lawsuit as a final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, a new

However, in such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the judgment of a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all requirements are satisfied to assert the established right.

However, the grounds for extinguishment of a claim, such as repayment, set-off, and exemption, which occurred after the closing of argument in the previous suit, are subject to the examination in the subsequent suit, and the defendant, who is the debtor, may defend in the subsequent suit with the aforementioned grounds. However, the change of laws or precedents cannot be deemed a new ground that

In addition, even if the interest rate for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is changed after the judgment in favor of one party becomes final and conclusive, the effect of the judgment in favor of one party does not change, and it is different from the judgment in favor of one party.