1. The defendant shall pay 74,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from February 28, 1998 to the day of complete payment.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for loans with the Suwon District Court 2008Kadan5390, Mar. 28, 2008, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay C the amount of KRW 74 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 28, 1998 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and C may acknowledge the fact that the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and C concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 to transfer the claim for the instant judgment and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above credit on April 3, 2018.

Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit based on the same subject-matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed

(2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant judgment claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da293858, Apr. 24, 2018). As such, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant judgment, with the money indicated in paragraph (1) of this case.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion argues that, while running a business with C, C invested funds and demanded a loan certificate with respect to the above investment funds and prepared it, the actual amount is a joint investment amount.

Even in cases where a new suit is exceptionally permitted for the interruption of extinctive prescription, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da11340, Apr. 11, 2013; 2017Da293858, Apr. 24, 2018).