The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff received transfer of the above claim from the promotional mutual savings bank (hereinafter “promotiond mutual savings bank”) that received credit card use price and loan claims (hereinafter “the instant claim”) from the National Bank Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”), against the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed for payment of the transfer price and damages for delay thereof against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant filed five years after the lapse of the commercial prescription period from February 20, 2004 where the Defendant’s claim was overdue. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the instant claim expired.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 and the entire pleadings, on August 21, 2006, on the ground that the promotion mutual savings bank acquired the claim of this case on the ground that it filed a lawsuit against the defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2006Da312591), and the judgment of winning the lawsuit was rendered on November 2, 2006, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2006, and the fact that the plaintiff acquired the claim of this case on June 15, 2011, and filed the lawsuit of this case on July 30, 2014, after which the plaintiff acquired the claim of this case on June 15, 2011, the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was interrupted by the lawsuit of the promotion mutual savings bank, which is the transferor, and was extended to 10 years by the above final judgment.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the claim of this case was extinguished due to the completion of prescription is without merit.

B. However, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a claim identical to the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party in the previous lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006