1. Of the instant lawsuit, the amount of the transferred money stated in the separate sheet, excluding the claim for the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that among the claims listed in the separate sheet in the separate sheet, the remaining claims against the Defendant except for the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. are transferred from the remaining creditors except for the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and sought payment of the acquisition amount of KRW 62,535,643 (total principal and interest KRW 20,877,954) as part of the lawsuit in this case. We examine ex officio as to the legitimacy of the above claim part of the lawsuit in this case.

According to the purport of Gap evidence and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming transfer money of KRW 20,877,954 with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006Da47534, which requested payment of the principal of the bonds he acquired from the above obligees, and on July 28, 2006, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,715,649 won and 20,877,954 won with interest of KRW 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the day of full payment." It can be acknowledged that the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party in favor of one party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a claim identical to the previous suit in favor of the other party in a final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). Accordingly, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of money transferred to the Defendant stated in the remaining attached list except the Seoul Guarantee Insurance cannot be deemed to have expired ten years, which is the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiff’s claim based on the judgment of the previous suit, which became final and conclusive, is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting

2. Determination on the claim for the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (personal part)