1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio deemed.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in case where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, in case where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription

(2) On October 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the transfer of the claim against the Defendant by asserting that he/she acquired the claim from mentmenan C&A loan, and that the said claim was transferred to mentmen C&A loan via Solomon C&A loan. As such, the above Solomon loan was transferred to mentmen C&A loan via Solomon C&A loan. As such, M&C loan filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the payment of the above claim under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2009Da12946, and was rendered a favorable judgment on October 16, 2009. The facts that the judgment became final and conclusive on November 11, 2009 can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings stated in the evidence No. 7.

Therefore, the plaintiff can enforce a compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause as a successor after the closing of argument in the above judgment, and there has been about 5 years until the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the above judgment, so it cannot be deemed that the ten-year lapse period, which is the extinctive prescription period of claims based on the final judgment,

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.