A. The lawsuit of dissatisfaction against the judgment of nullification against Defendant National Bank Co., Ltd. should be instituted against the applicant for the public summons (Article 490(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). As such, a claim for cancellation of the judgment of nullification against Defendant National Bank Co., Ltd., which is not the applicant for the public summons, is unlawful as it is filed against the person without qualification for the defendant.

B. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a check payment lawsuit against the Defendant National Bank Co., Ltd. and filed the instant lawsuit on May 30, 2014 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da64613, which had been pending in the lawsuit. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the check payment against the Defendant National Bank constitutes an overlapping lawsuit and is thus unlawful.

In addition, a lawsuit for formation, such as a lawsuit for objection to a nullification judgment, becomes effective only when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, so in principle, a performance lawsuit, etc., which is based on the legal relationship formed thereby cannot be filed concurrently.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6200 Decided January 27, 2004). In addition, in a situation where it is uncertain whether a judgment of cancellation against a nullification judgment has become final and conclusive, a check payment claim on the condition of such final and conclusive judgment cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for a lawsuit for performance in the future. In addition, according to the outcome of a lawsuit of objection to a nullification judgment, the examination of a check payment claim is likely to occur without prejudice, and the defendant of a check payment claim that must be protected against the case of acceptance of a lawsuit for objection to a nullification judgment may not be easily allowed in that it imposes excessive burden on the defendant of a check payment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da36661 Decided September 13, 2013). Therefore, the part on the claim against the Defendants is unlawful.

C. As to the Defendants’ exclusion period and assertion, the Defendants are against the judgment of nullification.