1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claims that were transferred from the lending institutions as set forth in the [Attachment Nos. 1, 3, and 11, respectively.

1. We examine whether the part of the claim that was transferred by the lending institution from the No. 1, 3, or 11 of the [Attachment List No. 1] among the instant lawsuit is lawful ex officio.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in cases where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous judgment in favor of one party, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the final judgment has expired, the lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription has a benefit of lawsuit.

As to the instant case, in full view of the purport of the argument and the whole argument, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the court 2006da23403, Jul. 26, 2006 against which “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 43,436,826 won and 27,440,512 won with interest of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment” and it is recognized that the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the part concerning each claim of this case among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful.

(A) As the above judgment on each claim became final and conclusive on August 13, 2006, the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the above final and conclusive judgment remains at least one year and thus the benefit of a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription is not recognized). Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the above claim part in the lawsuit in this case

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining claims No. 1-1 and No. 2-2, the defendant was liable for reimbursement against Seoul Guarantee Insurance as shown in the attached Table No. 2. The plaintiff acquired the claim against the defendant from Seoul Guarantee Insurance on May 13, 2005, and notified the defendant of the assignment of the claim on the same day.