The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

A. On January 5, 2017, the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 258,00,000 from C Cooperatives.

B. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a claim for loans, etc. with the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da41133, and the C Union was sentenced by the above court to “the Defendant shall pay C Association the amount calculated at the rate of 17.04% per annum from April 30, 2013 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 214,080,08 and KRW 138,021,109 among them.

On December 27, 2013, the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2013 because the defendant did not appeal against the above judgment.

(hereinafter the above judgment is referred to as the “instant judgment,” and the claims recognized in the above judgment are referred to as the “instant claims”).

C Partnership transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim at that time.

The Plaintiff filed a payment order with the Seoul Southern District Court 202Da114397 against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff received the instant claim from the Association, and issued a payment order from the above court. However, the Defendant filed an objection against the said payment order and implemented it as the instant litigation procedure.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap's 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio whether the instant lawsuit is legitimate, as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in cases where a party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has become final and conclusive files a lawsuit again against the other party as to the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, in cases where the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018, etc.). Moreover, a final and conclusive judgment is a pleading.