1. The acquisition of the instant lawsuit from the new card, the national card, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and the National Bank.

1. We examine the legality of the part of the claim for the amount taken over from the new card, national card, Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and National Bank (hereinafter “financial institution”) of the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to the new card, national card, Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and the part of the claim for the amount taken over from the National Bank.

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 14 (including the number of branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: ① The new card, the transferor of the credit from the new card, filed a lawsuit against the defendant on July 14, 2009 by the Changwon District Court Decision 2009Gau16453, which was sentenced in favor of the defendant on July 14, 2009; ② The national bank, the transferor of the credit from the national card and the national bank, filed a lawsuit against the defendant on the claim for loans under Busan District Court 2009Gau206873, which was sentenced in favor of the defendant on September 15, 2009; ③ The fact that the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, the transferor of the credit from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, has become final and conclusive on Oct. 8, 2009 and the judgment has become final and conclusive on Oct. 25, 209.

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff constitutes a successor after the closing of argument in each of the above judgments, res judicata effect on the plaintiff. The extinctive prescription of each of the above claims shall run again ten years after the date of the above judgment, and it cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription of each of the above claims was imminent at the present time, and therefore, the part of the claim for acquisition money from the new card, the national card, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and the National Bank is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection

2...