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

Where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit for the same claim against the other party to the previous suit which has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, in principle, the subsequent suit is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there

(see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). In addition, a final and conclusive payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since a final and conclusive judgment also remains effective as against a successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), it is sufficient for a person who succeeds to a legal relationship relating to a subject matter of lawsuit after the closing of pleadings or the final and conclusive payment order, without the need to bring a lawsuit again, to proceed with

As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the overall purport of the pleading as to the Plaintiff’s assertion and the evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the remaining agricultural cooperatives already applied for a payment order against the Defendants on or around July 31, 2012, and the payment order against the Defendant A was finalized on or around July 31, 2012 by the Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Da24651, Nov. 23, 2012, and the judgment of winning the Plaintiff was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff on or around September 12, 2017, the remaining agricultural cooperatives may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff transferred and completed the transfer of the instant claim against the Defendants on September 12, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the same claim on or around January 19, 2018.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to have been terminated ten years, which is the extinctive prescription period.