1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The part of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is omitted. On March 14, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 42,000,000 to D on March 14, 201 (hereinafter “instant claim”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed D’s obligation to D.

C on May 26, 2015, E, and on August 28, 2018, E transferred the instant claim in succession to the Defendant.

As of May 26, 2015, the principal of the instant claim is KRW 18,136,840, and the interest rate for delay is 20% per annum. Thus, the Defendant, a joint and several surety, shall pay to the Plaintiff 18,136,840 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 26, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. We examine the legality of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

A. According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act, a final and conclusive payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment in its execution power, etc. On the other hand, since a final and conclusive winning judgment has res judicata effect in a final and conclusive winning judgment, if a party who has received a final and conclusive winning judgment files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of

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, etc.). According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, the period of extinctive prescription is extended to 10 years even where a claim finalized in a payment order constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009).

In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 9 and the purport of the argument as a whole, Eul filed with the Chuncheon District Court for delay damages of KRW 29,547,520 in total with principal and interest of KRW 27,301,320 in this case = Interest of KRW 1,636,640 in principal and interest of KRW 27,30 in this case.