1. The Defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,416,676 as well as KRW 18,063,490 as the Plaintiff from June 30, 2016.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, ‘creditor' is regarded as ‘Plaintiff' and ‘debtor' as ‘Defendant' and ‘Defendant B'. And for obligor B, payment order has become final and conclusive.' 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was liable for a financial institution, which was a bad credit holder, with the seal affixed to the loan-related documents under the knowledge of the reduction of the joint and several sureties. 2) According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. against the Defendant, etc. seeking payment of the instant loan claim under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gadan177545, which was the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006, Sept. 19, 2006, and the judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff on Oct. 17, 2006.

However, there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, even if a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is exceptionally allowed, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied or not.

Therefore, in order to dispute the right relationship of the previous suit in the subsequent suit, the Defendant should first file an appeal for a lawful completion of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the res judicata should be extinguished. This does not change on the ground that the service of the copy of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment, etc. by service by public notice was not possible for the Defendant to bring an action against the previous suit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). The Defendant’s assertion that there was no obligation to perform the instant loan obligations in accordance with Article 3 is against the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit.