1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the instant claim, “a claim recorded in the cause of the claim (hereinafter “attached Form”) brought the same lawsuit after receiving a final and conclusive judgment regarding the instant claim.”

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the Korea CTR Bank, the transferor, filed a lawsuit claiming a loan with the Seoul Central District Court 201Kadan299081, which is the cause of the claim of this case. On November 30, 2011, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the Korea CTR Bank 36,418,558 won and 33,828,807 won with the interest of 21% per annum from August 2, 2011 to the date of complete payment," and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive at that time.

4. A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exists in a case where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period for a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A successor to a party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.

However, since the statute of limitations remains more than five years as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, it is difficult to view that the ten-year extinctive prescription period was imminent.

5. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. It is so decided as per Disposition.