1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 31, 2003, the Defendant borrowed 13% interest rate of KRW 10 million from the Seongbuk-gu Saemaul Bank of Korea (in addition to the delayed compensation rate of KRW 7% per annum) and the loan period of 36 months.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

On December 24, 2012, the Sungnam Saemaul Community Fund transferred the above loan claims against the Defendant to the Dad Partners Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). On November 20, 2014, the said company transferred the above loan claims to the Dadf Fac Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan claims from Dafac Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cfac Loan”).

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the instant company filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the instant loan against the Defendant and won a favorable judgment on July 24, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(U) The Seoul District Court Branch 2013Gaso214034, hereinafter referred to as “the front suit of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where ex officio determination of the suit of this case contains res judicata as to the legitimacy of the suit of this case, and where a party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of this case has been rendered files a lawsuit against the other party to the suit of this case which is identical to the previous suit of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party to

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final judgment has expired, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006). Res judicata is also limited to a third party who succeeds to the status of the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit, from the parties to the lawsuit, after the closing of argument (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). As such, res judicata of the judgment in the prior suit in this case extends to the Plaintiff who succeeds to the status of the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of

In this case.