1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of loan against the Defendant, etc., and the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 33,00,000 and KRW 20% per annum from September 7, 2012 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit”) was rendered on June 5, 2013 and confirmed on June 28, 2013, and became final and conclusive on June 28, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of pleadings.

2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits of this case is unlawful for the plaintiff to make a claim identical to the judgment prior to the merits of this case, and the defense prior to the merits of this case is unlawful.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one 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 for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party, the subsequent suit is unlawful as

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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive. Accordingly, there is no benefit in the protection of rights in the instant lawsuit, and in light of the date the judgment on the previous suit became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that the ten-year lapse period, which is the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the judgment on the instant prior suit

On the other hand, the judgment of the previous suit of this case cannot be viewed differently according to the circumstance that it was impossible to enforce compulsory execution due to the lack of the defendant's resident registration number or abstract of resident registration number.

The defendant's prior defense on the merits is reasonable.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.