1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 167,765,093 and KRW 49,430,796 among them, from January 1, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of the cause of claim: It shall be as shown in attached Form;

(However, 'creditor' is considered as 'Plaintiff', 'debtor' as 'Defendant'). 【The ground for recognition' does not dispute, 'The entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant's assertion that there was no contact or notification from each creditor financial institution on July 2, 2018 regarding the assignment of claims of this case in the future of the plaintiff before receiving the first mail on July 2, 2018. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case has expired.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has been rendered files a lawsuit again 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 in the protection of rights.

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, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all necessary requirements are satisfied to assert the established right.

In addition, such legal principle also applies where the final judgment of the previous suit is proceeding by public notice.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Da293858 Decided April 24, 2018, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). According to the health care unit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the instant case, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant claims, which are non-performing loans, from each creditor financial institution, as prescribed by the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, from each creditor financial institution around April 1, 2005, and then filed a claim suit against the Defendant on August 6, 2008 by filing a claim for the amount of acquisition with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008Da5273 Decided 31, 208.