1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price claim with Seoul Southern District Court 2006Gahap18182 on April 5, 2007. The judgment of the court below that "the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 25% per annum from December 1, 1996 to November 30, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of the court below") is the same year.

5. 1. It is finalized as it is.

B. C on October 18, 2007, transferred the claim for the judgment amount to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the transfer at that time.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, if the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of the other party in the previous suit files a lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful

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 a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). Regarding the instant case, the health department and the judgment in the previous suit became final and conclusive on May 1, 2007, and C transferred the claim for the judgment in the previous suit to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 13, 2017, which was ten years after the date when the judgment in the previous suit became final and conclusive. As seen earlier, the instant lawsuit falls under the case where a lawsuit seeking the same claim as the previous suit after the lapse of the extinctive prescription, and thus, is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

As to this, the plaintiff is the plaintiff.