1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

We examine the legality of the instant suit in accordance with the instant safety defense, ex officio against Defendant B, and according to the purport that there is no legal interest in the suit against Defendant C and D.

The plaintiff asserts that in the lawsuit of Changwon District Court 2007Kadan53429 as the cause of the claim of this case, the plaintiff filed the same lawsuit for the interruption of prescription after receiving a final and conclusive judgment on the claims stated in the above claim of this case.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of promissory notes against the claims stated in the above claim under Changwon District Court 2007Da53429, and the above court rendered a judgment on March 26, 2008 (However, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case by reflecting the change in the rate of damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.) and the fact that this judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

A claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has a benefit of lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription only in cases where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the claim in this case, which became final and conclusive by a judgment, remains at least one year and nine months, and it is difficult to deem that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.