1. The part against Defendant B among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. Defendant C is jointly and severally and severally with Defendant B in KRW 350,000,00.

1. On November 24, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the payment of loans of KRW 350 million with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006Gahap8314,000,000. On November 24, 2006, the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment against the said court that “the Defendant jointly and severally pays to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 350 million with interest of KRW 350,000 and KRW 20% per annum from April 13, 2006 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “prior judgment”). [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought a loan to Defendant B with the same content as the prior judgment for the extension of extinctive prescription.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in a case where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of ex

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to No. 4 ex officio, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim on April 8, 2014 with the Daejeon District Court Support 2014TTTTB242 as to the health insurance, medical care expenses, and claims against Defendant B, etc. based on the preceding judgment’s title as the title of execution.

In light of the above legal principles, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 350 million against Defendant B was interrupted due to the service of the above bond seizure and collection order.