1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are found to be without dispute between the parties or recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including evidence with a serial number):

A. On February 5, 1997, the Mineyang Livestock Cooperatives (referring to the Plaintiff that was merged with the Plaintiff after the merger; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) provided loans to B by setting the interest rate of KRW 20 million per annum 13% per annum, delay damage rate of KRW 22% per annum, and the transaction period of February 5, 1999.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, Defendant, and C with this Court Order 2001Ga22653 as the principal debtor did not repay the above principal and interest of loan. On May 16, 2002, the above court rendered a judgment with the purport that “B, Defendant, and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 21,472,730 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 18% per annum from September 13, 2001 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2002.

C. On October 18, 2007, the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal and interest of loan under the preceding judgment, which became final and conclusive, was provisionally attached to B’s claim for the refund of deposit for lease to the Korea National Housing Corporation by this Court No. 2007Kadan5000.

On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the principal and interest of the foregoing claim against B, Defendant, and C based on the preceding judgment.

2. We examine ex officio whether the instant lawsuit is lawful.

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

Supreme Court Decision 2006No. 14 Decided April 14, 2006