The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 47,964,00 per annum from September 25, 1997 to October 23, 2007 and the next day.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for a loan claim against Busan District Court 2007Kadan104702, and the defendant was served by public notice, and the defendant was awarded a favorable judgment on November 21, 2007 and confirmed at that time (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on November 16, 2017 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the judgment of this case is clearly stated in the records.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 47,964,00 won with 5% interest per annum from September 25, 1997 to October 23, 2007 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The defendant's assertion asserts that the judgment of this case was proceeding by public notice and did not know the contents thereof.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect in a final and conclusive favorable judgment, the parties concerned shall be exceptionally allowed to institute a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances, such as principle or interruption of prescription. In such a case, the judgment of the new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). Therefore, this Court cannot re-examine the requirements for the argument of the instant judgment, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.