1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention are all dismissed.

2. Costs of lawsuit after an appeal is filed.

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. The following facts are apparent in the record or are significant in this court:

1) On November 12, 1997, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On December 12, 1997, the court of first instance served the Defendant with the documents of the lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading, by public notice. After the Defendant was absent on December 10, 1997, the first date for pleading is proceeding with the Defendant’s absence, and the loan claim equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim on the

(2) The court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff at that time served the Defendant with the original copy of the judgment by public notice, and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive on December 27, 1997.

3) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2005 (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)

(4) On January 24, 2006, the Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the instant claim and the Seoul Eastern District Court 2006Kadan7885 (hereinafter “related lawsuit”) seeking the payment of the reimbursement amount claim that was transferred from the Seoul Eastern District Court (hereinafter “related lawsuit”) and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 6, 2006, and the original copy of the judgment was served by service by public notice to the Defendant.

The Defendant asserted that the instant claim had expired by prescription while filing an appeal for subsequent completion on August 16, 2016 regarding the foregoing judgment. However, the appellate court rendered a judgment on April 21, 2017, which became final and conclusive around that time after the Plaintiff was sentenced to the first instance judgment on December 10, 1997, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time. The appellate court rendered a judgment rejecting the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription and dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on the ground that the Intervenor filed the instant lawsuit at the time ten years have not elapsed thereafter, and the said appellate judgment was served on the Defendant on April 28, 2017.

The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 13, 2017.

5. The defendant.