1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed in this part;

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The scope of the judgment in this Court claimed against the Defendant for the payment of the claims that the Plaintiff acquired from Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”), Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and the first instance court dismissed the part of the claims that the Plaintiff acquired from Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and the part of the claims that the Defendant acquired from Solomon Savings Bank

Since only the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claims that the plaintiff acquired from Solomon Savings Bank.

2. We examine whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful ex officio with respect to the claim that was taken over by the Solomon Savings Bank.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, a final and conclusive judgment not only becomes effective to the parties but also to the successors following the closure of pleadings (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). A person who succeeds to the legal relationship, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, after the closure of pleadings, is subject to compulsory execution upon obtaining the succession execution clause.

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6.

Solomon Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court No. 2008 Ghana150271 against the defendant, and "the defendant" filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as to 2,981,876 won and 2,089,913 won among them.