1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On June 28, 1983, 35,174,230 won at par value, and on June 28, 1986, a promissory note which is the payee Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “IB”) was issued by the Plaintiff, and upon the refusal of payment at the due date, the said promissory note claims were transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff via the future sett Capital Co., Ltd., Ethmpon Co., Ltd., Ethon Seoul, Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ethon Seoul”), and the Dlim Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages for the amount of KRW 2,951,018 out of the remaining amount of the promissory note and its principal.

2. Since a judgment in favor of the court in favor of the defendant has res judicata effect, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, in case where the party against the other party of the previous suit files a lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of the court in favor of the former suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). The res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to the successor after the closing of argument in the previous suit or the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Article 218(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act). According to Article 218(1)2 of the former Civil Procedure Act, Eno Seoul Seoul Seoul Special District Court Decision 2007Da15680, Oct. 4, 2007, which acquired the above claim against the defendant in favor of the former suit, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the plaintiff who received the above final and conclusive judgment in sequence of the execution clause from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.