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. Since a judgment in favor of a final and conclusive judgment regarding the cause of the claim has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party in favor of the former lawsuit re-appeals the other party in favor of the same claim as the previous final and conclusive judgment in favor of the former lawsuit

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(2) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, A (former name: B), C, and D on December 14, 2002, seeking the payment of the loan obligation of this case under the Busan District Court Decision 2002Gadan140314, and won the lawsuit. The above defendants appealed by 2004Na5396 of the same court, but the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2004 on December 18, 2014. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above defendants on December 14, 2002, considering the purport of the whole argument as to the statement of evidence No. 1 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006).

According to the above facts, the lawsuit in this case was filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final judgment, and there is a benefit in the lawsuit, and the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the obligation based on the final judgment,

2. The defendant's assertion that the above loan contract was null and void because the defendant prepared documents at the time when the plaintiff entered into the loan contract with A and actually did not receive the loan. However, such assertion cannot be recognized as contrary to the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment (Seoul District Court 2004Na5396).

(In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant's assertion is acceptable. The defendant's claim at present for more than 10 years is not appropriate.