1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim related to the new bank, Inc., the transferor agency, as indicated in the separate sheet against the Defendant A and B.

1. The Plaintiff, prior to the merits, sought payment of principal amounting to KRW 24 million and interest accrued therefrom with respect to the part of the claim related to the new bank by the transferor agency listed in the separate sheet against the Defendant A and B.

However, according to the evidence No. 8, the new bank, a stock company, after receiving the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da259561 Decided November 6, 2009 with respect to the above claim, can recognize the fact that the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 3, 2009.

A new suit concerning the same subject matter as the above final and conclusive judgment is not allowed as there is no benefit of protection of rights, barring special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, and a successor to a party may also enforce compulsory execution by obtaining a succession execution clause.

The plaintiff is a creditor who has taken over the above claim from the new bank. Since the extinctive prescription period of the above claim remains 30 months as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, there is no benefit of protection of rights in this part.

Therefore, the above part of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination on the merits

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1-7 as to the cause of the claim, the lower court’s judgment on the ground of the claim is tenable. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 36,312,200 and the interest accrued therefrom.

B. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations for the above claim cannot be completed, and thus, they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

The extinctive prescription of a loan claim of a financial institution is applied to five years as a commercial prescription. According to each of the above evidence, the above claim was established on April 17, 2003, and its maturity or final transaction date can be acknowledged at least at the latest as of 2007, and it is clearly stated in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on February 22, 2017, which was five years after it was filed.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion that the extinctive prescription of the above claim has expired.