1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of claims Nos. 1 and 5 in the table of the grounds for the claim shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. In the instant lawsuit, ex officio determination on the legality of the part concerning the claim concerning the claims Nos. 1 and 5 in the table Nos. 1 and 5 in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 5 (hereinafter “instant claim Nos. 1 and 5”) in the instant lawsuit is based on the legality of the part concerning the claim Nos. 1 and

A. A. A claim based on the relevant legal doctrine and final judgment has an interest in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription only in cases where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A successor to a party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.

Meanwhile, given that a final and conclusive payment order and a final and conclusive performance recommendation decision have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, the payment order and a new suit for a claim for which a performance recommendation decision has become final and conclusive is not allowed as there is no benefit of protection

B. According to the fact-finding results with respect to the new card corporation in this case, the part concerning the claim 1 of this case is examined. The new card corporation, the transferor of the claim 1 of this case, (hereinafter referred to as the "new card").

(2) As of the date of closing argument in this case, it is difficult to deem that the extinctive prescription period of the instant claim 1 remains approximately four years and ten (10) years, as of the date of closing argument in this case, and the extinctive prescription period of ten (10) years elapsed.

Ultimately, the part concerning the claim of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

C. According to the fact-finding results on Samsung Card Co., Ltd., the five claims of this case 1), the Samsung Card Co., Ltd., the transferor of the five claims of this case (hereinafter referred to as "Tsung Card").

section 2.2.