1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking loans against the Defendants as Daegu District Court Decision 2003Kadan28948, and received a ruling of recommending reconciliation from the above court that “the Defendant shall pay each of the Defendants KRW 19,667,869 to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2004,” and the decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff completed the provisional attachment registration on April 22, 2003, upon receipt of the decision on provisional attachment of real estate by the Daegu District Court 2003Kadan27020 with each claim amounting to KRW 7,50,000 for each of the Defendants’ 1/4 shares among the above ground buildings in Daegu-gun District Court C

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of prescription due to the excessive expiration of the prescription period of the loan claims against the defendants based on the previous decision of recommending reconciliation.

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 a 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 judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of ex

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). In addition, while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, and in light of Article 168 of the Civil Act and Article 168 of the Civil Act, a claim for a provisional seizure and a judicial claim are provided as separate causes of interruption of prescription, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall be interrupted even if a favorable judgment in favor of the merits on the preserved claim by provisional seizure becomes final and conclusive.