1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea-China Specialized Company filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and his mother-friendly B, and the co-defendant C and D (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) of the first instance court, which is his mother-child B and their siblings, to the Gwangju District Court 2003Gahap5230.

B. The Plaintiff (former Co., Ltd.) succeeded to the said lawsuit after taking over the claim against the Defendant, etc. of a limited liability company specializing in the next securitization of Han-do, and subsequently succeeded to the said lawsuit.

C. On May 20, 2004, the above court rendered a ruling that "the defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 168,783,519 won and 70,635,241 won among them, 30% per annum from October 15, 1998 to December 31, 1998; 27% per annum from the next day to April 14, 1999; 25% per annum from the next day to June 13, 199; and 23% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment in a lawsuit").

The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 15, 2004 against the defendant.

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

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant

A. Since a judgment in favor of the party in favor of the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, where the party in favor of the party in favor of the final and conclusive judgment files a lawsuit against the other party in favor of the former judgment again against the same claim as the prior suit in favor of the former judgment, the latter lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, but exceptionally, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006. Meanwhile, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure continues while the effect of preserving the execution of provisional seizure remains effective (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18622, Nov. 14, 2013). There is no reason to regard the effect of interruption of prescription by provisional seizure as different from that of provisional seizure.

Therefore, the prescription due to the seizure.