1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,700,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from November 16, 2003 to September 30, 2015.

1. According to the purport of evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 47,700,000 that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant had not been paid due date, and that the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit with the Busan District Court Decision 2003Da151922, Dec. 19, 2005; and the above court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on December 19, 2005 and rendered a judgment for claimant as stated in the purport of the purport of the claim; the instant lawsuit is recognized as a subsequent suit filed by the Plaintiff to prevent the completion of extinctive prescription after the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit.

2. Since a judgment in favor of the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, the parties are prohibited from filing a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, and in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as interruption of prescription

In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). In this case, the Defendant’s defense that the instant obligation also ceased to exist due to the lapse of the statute of limitations on promissory notes related to the relevant principal obligation (contribute Company’s obligation).

However, as long as it became final and conclusive through the final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit that the Plaintiff’s credit against the Defendant exists, it shall be deemed that, on the premise of the above legal doctrine, the Defendant’s defense cannot be re-examined in the instant lawsuit instituted to interrupt extinctive prescription

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.