1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around August 2, 2001, the Defendant lost the benefit of time due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the usage fees by obtaining a credit card from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.,” and omitting the entry of “Co., Ltd.”).

B. On October 31, 2005, D received the credit card user's credit card payment claim from C, and thereafter filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gada2513190) against the Defendant and rendered a judgment on March 26, 2009 that "the Defendant shall pay 20% interest per annum for KRW 2,673,351 and for KRW 1,226,44 as to KRW 20% per annum from March 21, 2009 to the day of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 28, 2009.

C. The above claim was transferred through E on November 1, 201 to the Plaintiff on December 30, 201, and the notification of the assignment of claims was also issued accordingly. D.

As of August 12, 2019, the above amount of credit as of August 12, 2019 is KRW 5,23,970 (= Principal KRW 1,226,44, interest or delay damages KRW 4,007,526).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims according to the above final judgment. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case.

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 has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party of the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party, the subsequent suit is unlawful

However, exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Moreover, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is limited to a successor subsequent to the closing of argument (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, a successor who has res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment files a lawsuit identical to a prior suit of a final and conclusive judgment in favor of him/her.