1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The fact of recognition that Samsung Card Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in September 2009 against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gaso235435, and the above court rendered a judgment on March 17, 2010 that “the Defendant shall pay to Samsung Card Co., Ltd. the amount of money calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum from August 28, 2009 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter referred to as “full-time judgment”) with the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to Samsung Card Co., Ltd. the amount of money calculated at the rate of 22,454,95 won and 10,268,195 won among them and the date of full payment.” The previous judgment became final and conclusive on April 13, 2010.

Samsung Card Co., Ltd. transferred, on November 11, 2010, to Solomon Savings Bank, to Solomon Savings Bank, to Solomon Savings Bank on December 30, 201. On May 29, 201, to the Plaintiff on May 29, 2013, to the Plaintiff, and on May 29, 2013, to the Defendant each transfer was notified.

As of October 21, 2013, the claim for the amount of the above-mentioned transfer was 17,086,432 won including the principal amount of KRW 4,230,450 and interest KRW 12,85,982.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a judgment in favor of the court rendered ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit has res judicata effect, the party who won the lawsuit does not have the benefit of protecting the right to institute a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the judgment finalized, except where there are special circumstances, such as the necessity of suspending extinctive prescription,

On the other hand, since the plaintiff succeeded to the claim established by the judgment in the previous suit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit extends to the plaintiff. The lawsuit in this case seeking the performance of the claim in the previous suit constitutes a new lawsuit based on the same subject matter as the judgment in the previous suit which became final and conclusive, and the period of extinctive prescription of the claim in the previous suit (10 years from the date on which the judgment became final and conclusive: Articles 165(1) and 178(2) of the Civil Act) is not excessive, and thus, the same new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription does not constitute an inevitable case.