1. The defendant shall pay 24,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from May 11, 2005 to the day of complete payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment against the defendant on July 8, 2005, stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 24 million won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 11, 2005 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2005, and the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on September 16, 2014 for the extension of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above judgment to the plaintiff as stated in the order.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion was ruled by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da365898 by public notice in the claim for loan, and the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's claim was not a loan but a loan, and introduced D on April 27, 1998 to the representative director of C Co., Ltd., and the defendant exempted the plaintiff from the obligation.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, and in exceptional circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment in favor of the previous suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. As such, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements exist to assert the established right, and seek a judgment inconsistent with the existence of legal relations determined in the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit by asserting the means of attack and defense existing before the closing of argument in the same subject matter of lawsuit is contrary to res judicata effect in the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit, and the parties did not know