1. The defendant shall pay KRW 5,997,514 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One of the costs of lawsuit;

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7, Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Nonindicted Company") lent KRW 4,99,820 to the defendant around May 28, 2001 (e.g., May 27, 2003). The defendant delayed the payment of the principal and interest of the loan, and the non-party company filed a claim suit against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da135481, around 2004. The above court decided on July 5, 2004 that the defendant shall pay the principal and interest of the loan to the non-party company as KRW 5,97,514, which became final and conclusive around that time, and on the other hand, the non-party company notified the defendant of all rights related to the above loan to the defendant around May 13, 2005.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases such as the interruption of prescription, a new suit is allowed.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,997,514 to the plaintiff who is the transferee of the claim pursuant to the above judgment. Since it is apparent that the ten-year extinctive prescription period of the claim pursuant to the above judgment has ceased to exist, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription is beneficial to the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought payment of the original principal and interest of loan and damages for delay on the ground that he received all rights related to the above loan claims against the Defendant from the non-party company. However, as long as a final and conclusive judgment was rendered between the non-party company and the Defendant, the lawsuit in this case brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the final and conclusive judgment cannot be determined contrary to the existing final and conclusive