2. Defendant B and C are jointly and severally with Defendant A.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in a case where the other party in the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party in favor of one party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed 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 the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A final and conclusive judgment, other than the parties, also becomes effective against a successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings (see, e.g., Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). A transferee of a pecuniary claim of a judgment ordering monetary payment after the closure of pleadings constitutes the

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 (including the virtual number)’s entire pleadings, the fact that Homato2 Savings Bank, a transferor of claims, filed a lawsuit against the defendant A on July 15, 201, which was sentenced to winning on July 15, 201 by filing a favorable judgment against the Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap21581, with respect to each of the loans of this case, and thereafter, the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 5, 201. The each of the loans of this case thereafter can be acknowledged that the claims of this case were transferred to EchiS Deposit Limited Company on December 13, 201 and that they were transferred to the plaintiff on June 3, 2013.

In full view of all the aforementioned legal principles and the above facts, the Plaintiff constitutes a successor after the closing of argument in the judgment, and thus res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment extends to the Plaintiff. The ten-year extinctive prescription of each of the loans in this case shall run again since August 5, 201, and it cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription of each of the loans in this case was imminent at the present time. Accordingly, the Defendant in the lawsuit in this case by the Plaintiff