1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a limited company specializing in asset-backed securitization established under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and the Defendant is a person who obtained a loan from financial institutions, such as C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and D Co., Ltd. or used credit cards.

B. The Plaintiff acquired the total amount of KRW 10,040,042 from each of the above financial institutions to the Defendant’s loan claims or credit card use-price claims.

(hereinafter “this case’s transferee claim”). C.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the total amount of KRW 10,040,042, and damages for delay thereof, as the Incheon District Court Decision 2008Gada10759, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant. On July 9, 2008, the court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,040,042, and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from October 25, 2003 to January 24, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter the above case is referred to as “the previous lawsuit,” and the above judgment was referred to as “the previous lawsuit of this case”). However, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Na13135), and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 18, 209.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, significant facts in this court, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party files a lawsuit against the other party identical to the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit of

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.

Furthermore, in such a case, the judgment of the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit.