A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 5,090,055 won, 6,401,401,301 won, 11,491,356 won, 2,836 won, 5,698,388 won, 3,690,941 won, 6,590,941 won, totaling 10,597,60,607,6388 won, 200 won, 3,698,388 won, 200 won, 3,690,941 won, 6,590,941 won, 10,60,607 won, 263,780,685 won, 208, 2005 won, 2,305 won, 208, 208, 305 won, 205, 208, 2008.

B. (1) The judgment in favor of a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, where a 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 the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit

(2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the national bank, the transferor of the above claim, filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of each of the above claims against the defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gaso2377847) against the above court on April 24, 2008, and then it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Meanwhile, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment is ten years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act, and the period of prescription is ten years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act.