1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act, a final and conclusive payment order shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment in executive force, etc. except res judicata.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in case where the party against the other party to the lawsuit in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the same claim as the previous lawsuit in favor of one party to the lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive

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 if the claim established in the payment order constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

C Around July 23, 2012, the trade name was changed to D, a stock company E again around March 14, 2013, and around March 14, 2013; hereinafter “C”) ordered payment on January 17, 201 by applying for payment order against the Defendant to the Seoul Central District Court 201 teabro 2310, which became final and conclusive around February 8, 201; C received a claim seizure and collection order (Cheongju District Court 2011TT201T2011) against the Defendant as the obligor on March 11, 201; C transferred the above claim against the Defendant to F, around December 28, 2012; and C may recognize the purport of the entire pleading or transfer the claim to the Plaintiff around January 15, 2015.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff is the successor who acquired the claim under the above payment order. Thus, the plaintiff is granted the succession execution clause.