Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay 100,000,000 won per annum from January 6, 2006 to May 25, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment as the principal and interest to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim from the first creditor financial institution (Korean Commercial Bank).

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. Defendant C has a defense that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription. Accordingly, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the transferor of the claim, filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on August 25, 2006 against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap20486, which became final and conclusive on September 16, 2006, and rendered a favorable judgment on September 25, 2006. As such, the extinctive prescription was interrupted, and the same will proceed again.

However, the fact that the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, filed the instant lawsuit on June 21, 2016, prior to the lapse of ten years from the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive, is apparent in the record, and thus, Defendant C’s defense of extinctive prescription is therefore groundless.

B. In addition, Defendant C asserts that the guaranteed obligation has ceased to exist even after the three-year period stipulated in Article 7 of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety. As seen earlier, it is difficult to re-examine whether the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription has res judicata effect in a final and conclusive favorable judgment as seen earlier, and all of the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). In the judgment prior to a prior suit, the transferee of the claim against Defendant C.