The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on repayment and the claim for set-off, a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit based on the same subject-matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment in principle. However, even in cases where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject-matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment exceptionally has special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, the judgment on a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da1645, Jun. 12, 1998; 2012Da11340, Apr. 11, 2013). The lower court determined that, inasmuch as a final and conclusive judgment on the claim for the loan of this case against the Defendant exists, the obligee of the instant claim of this case filed by the Plaintiff for the interruption of prescription, which is based on the premise that the obligee of the said final and conclusive judgment would not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment, and that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to repayment and set-off, or exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the good faith principle and the assertion of abuse of rights, the principle of good faith under the Civil Act refers to an abstract norm that the parties to legal relations should not exercise their rights or perform their duties in a way that violates the principle of equity or trust in consideration of the other party’s interests.