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

A. On September 30, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Ulsan District Court 2005Kadan6128, and was sentenced by the above court on September 30, 2005 that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 32,679,250 won with 5% per annum from July 24, 2004 to July 6, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment in the previous lawsuit of this case”). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant recognized by the judgment of the previous suit of this case (hereinafter “instant claim”).

On July 8, 2011, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the instant claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from the Changwon District Court 201TTT 10470, with the title of execution of the judgment on the instant claim, with the debtor as the Defendant and the third obligor as the Defendant and the third obligor, as well as 12 persons, and around that time, the seizure and collection order was served on the third obligor and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, 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 lawsuit against the other party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. In exceptional cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, the benefit in the lawsuit is recognized only for the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Meanwhile, the interruption of prescription by provisional attachment continues while the effect of preservation for execution of provisional attachment continues (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18622, Nov. 14, 2013). Therefore, there is no reason to regard the