양수금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim regarding the claims Nos. 1 through 4 in the table of the grounds for the claim shall be dismissed.
1. Determination ex officio as to the claim portion against the claims Nos. 1 through 4 in the table of the grounds for the claim in the instant lawsuit No. 4 (hereinafter “instant claims Nos. 1 through 4”).
A. According to the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 3 of the instant lawsuit, the lawfulness of the part concerning the claim of this case among the instant lawsuit 1 ex officio 1) as to the legality of the part concerning the claim of this case among the instant lawsuit, the transferor’s forest credit union filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground of the claim of this case (Seoul District Court 2007Gau278149) (No. 207Gau District Court 2007Gau278149), and the above court rendered a judgment accepting the claim of this case on May 20, 208, and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 14, 2008.
3) Only where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, there exists a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Moreover, a successor to the party can enforce compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause. As such, the same is identical to the instant one claim established by the judgment, which remains for more than two years as of the date of closing argument in the instant case, and it is difficult to deem that ten-year extinctive prescription has expired as of the date of closing argument in the instant case. 4) Ultimately, the part of the instant claim in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the
B. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the part concerning claims Nos. 2 and 4 of this case among the lawsuits of this case, ex officio 1) the legality of the part concerning claims Nos. 2 and 4 of this case is examined. 2) According to the records Nos. 3-1 through 9, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. of this case against the defendant as the ground for claims Nos. 2 and 3 of this case (Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. of this case) (Seoul District Court 2006DaGa95718). The above court declared that it accepted all claims on Jan. 16, 2007, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on Feb. 1, 2007, and (2).