1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant emphasized or added as the reasons for appeal by the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion does not know at all about the debt of the loan due to the loan of this case, and is liable for the loan of this case for household affairs.

Even after the auction case of the instant real estate, A asserts that the said debt was extinguished by receiving dividends from the auction case of the instant real estate.

B. In light of the judgment, the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has res judicata effect, and where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party, the subsequent suit is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

Furthermore, in such a case, the judgment of the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all requirements are satisfied to assert the established right.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). The Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order in order to extend the prescription period of the loan principal and interest claims of this case finalized by the judgment regarding the preceding case on December 21, 2008 is apparent in the record. As seen earlier, the judgment of the subsequent suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the subsequent suit court cannot re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied, and thus, the loan of this case is difficult.