Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim of the first financial institution (LG card Co., Ltd.) KRW 35,33,855 of the balance of principal and interest and KRW 10,310,000 of the principal and interest, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 24, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's defense against the defendant is a defense that the plaintiff's claim of this case expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription. However, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments as seen earlier, since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of transfer money against the defendant as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2006Da7317, Apr. 6, 2006 and was sentenced to winning a favorable judgment on April 6, 2006, the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, the extinctive

However, since the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on December 29, 2015, which was before the ten-year period from the date the above judgment became final and conclusive, is apparent in the record, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is therefore without merit.

In addition, since the defendant did not write his/her signature on the documents of joint and several liability, so long as it is confirmed that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant exists in the judgment on the prior suit, as seen above, the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of prescription cannot re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). It is unnecessary to examine the grounds asserted by the defendant in the lawsuit of this case.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.