1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 30, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim against the Defendant with the Ulsan District Court 2004Gau55257 on April 30, 2004. (2) The above court rendered a judgment on November 2, 2004 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4 million and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 21, 2004 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2004.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on July 7, 2014 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim for judgment payment of the instant case, seeking the payment of the loan as the same cause of claim as the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit prior to December 24, 2014, for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period of the loan claim established by the instant judgment, and thus, the benefit of the instant lawsuit may be recognized as a re-litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there was no borrowing KRW 4 million from the plaintiff, and that it was only a seal affixed to the blank without threatening the plaintiff.

However, in special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, even in cases where a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit is allowed exceptionally as a final and conclusive judgment, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340 Decided April 11, 2013, etc.). Therefore, this Court cannot render a judgment that conflict with the res judicata effect of the instant judgment, and thus, the existence of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant cannot be denied. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is going further.