1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts following the facts are acknowledged as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 5, and 3-2 of evidence No. 1-2; and (c) the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. C filed a lawsuit with the Busan District Court Decision 2001Da37028 against D to pay the purchase price of KRW 252,00 and its delay damages, and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was finalized on March 10, 202.

(hereinafter the above judgment "the final and conclusive judgment of this case" and C's claim against D, which was recognized thereby, B.

C On May 27, 2009, with the claim of this case as the claim of this case, received the debtor D and 3 debtor as the National Bank Co., Ltd., and the third debtor as the Republic of Korea, and served the seizure and collection order against the third debtor around that time. The debtor was served to D on September 24, 2009.

C. C on May 29, 2013, obtained succession execution clause with respect to E, Defendant, and F (one-third of each inheritance share), the heir of the network D.

On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim from C, and C, on the same day, notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the claim as a content certificate.

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, in a case where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment files a lawsuit against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of the former one, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006; 98Da1645, Jun. 12, 1998). B.

The plaintiff is against C.