Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of loans with this Court Order 2009Kadan18246, and on June 30, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment against the Defendant that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 31,380,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 1, 200 to April 16, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the judgment before the instant lawsuit”). The above judgment was finalized on August 8, 2009.

B. On February 27, 2012, the judgment of the instant lawsuit was rendered by the Plaintiff as the executive title, and each of the above decisions reached the third debtor at the time of the issuance of a collection order and seizure of claims against each of the Defendant, the third debtor’s organization, and the D Association under the Supreme Court No. 2012T No. 2058, Apr. 17, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether there is a benefit in determining the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is a legitimate requirement of the lawsuit, and the court’s ex officio investigation is a matter, and the principle of pleading does not apply to this.

A. The subject matter of the instant lawsuit is identical to the subject matter of the instant judgment, except where part of the damages for delay has been reduced, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of extending the prescription period of claims based on the judgment in the instant lawsuit, and ex officio, considered the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

B. Where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a claim identical to the previous suit in favor of the other party in a final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is inappropriate in principle as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. In exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit in the

The interruption of prescription by an attachment among the causes interrupting extinctive prescription shall be effective.