1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Since a judgment in favor of the party in favor of which a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the case became final and conclusive has res judicata effect, where a party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the case files a lawsuit against the other party in favor of the previous suit for the same claim as that in the previous suit

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

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the assignment of claims against the Defendant, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the assignment of claims against the Defendant, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the assignment of claims against the Defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the assignment of claims against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006; 2005Da74764, Nov. 25, 2008; 2008Da15824, Nov. 25, 2008).

Since res judicata is limited to a third party who succeeds to the status of the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit, after the closing of argument, it also extends to the plaintiff who succeeds to the status of the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit, against

As the period of extinctive prescription against the Defendant still remains more than two years, it cannot be said that the ten-year extinctive prescription period was imminent.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit in protecting the rights.

2. Conclusion.