1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

2. In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statements No. 1-1, No. 1-3, No. 3-2, and No. 4-6, a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) that is the transferor of claims No. 2 of the attached Table No. 1-2, filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court No. 2008da392942, Jan. 14, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment that “the defendant shall pay to the new bank 32,50,000 won and 20% interest per annum from December 17, 2008 to the day of full payment,” and it can be acknowledged that the above judgment becomes final and conclusive around February 2009.

3. A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exists in a case where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, and a claim based on a final judgment has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A successor to a party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.

4. However, it is difficult to view that the ten-year extinctive prescription period, as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, remains more than two years, and the said claim established by a judgment remains more than ten years.

5. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect the rights.