1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) received a favorable judgment against the Defendant on November 8, 2012: “The Defendant shall pay to Nonparty Co., Ltd. 37,395,602 and 34,228,620 won per annum from July 21, 2012 to the date of full payment, the amount of money calculated at the rate of 37.5% per annum from July 21, 2012,” and the said judgment was finalized on November 27, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “final judgment in a prior suit,” and the claims of the non-party company recognized in the final judgment in a prior suit are b.

After the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit, the instant claim was transferred in sequence to D Co., Ltd., E, and F, and was transferred to the Plaintiff on July 22, 2016, and all notice of the assignment of claim was given to the Defendant.

C. On November 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order seeking payment of the same claim as the instant claim recognized by the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit, and the Defendant filed an objection against the payment order and implemented it as the instant litigation procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

As a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party to the lawsuit files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party to the lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

This is the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment to bring a new lawsuit in the same situation where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim is not imminent after the judgment in favor of the Supreme Court becomes final and conclusive.