2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff (formerly: the Reorganization Corporation) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for loans against a financial institution under the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap21024.

B. On September 28, 2005, the above court rendered a judgment in the above lawsuit that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 304,10,928 won and 54,993,967 won from August 3, 2001; 70,970,547 won from February 8, 2000 to June 30, 2004; 29% per annum from June 30, 2004; 18% per annum from the next day to March 28, 2005; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment in the previous lawsuit of this case"). The judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 34 million within the scope of principal and interest pursuant to the final judgment of the previous suit of this case, and on the other hand, the lawsuit of this case brought for the purpose of the extension of prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription is imminent after the judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment are asserted that the defendant paid a total of KRW 180 million after the judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive, and that the defendant paid a total of KRW 34 million after the judgment of the first instance court of this case was rendered.

The facts that the Defendant repaid a total of KRW 150 million, including KRW 50 million on June 30, 2010, and KRW 150 million on August 5, 2010, are also the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant’s repayment exceeds the above KRW 150 million. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for repayment is with merit only within the extent of the above recognition.

However, the amount of the above KRW 150 million discharged by the Defendant from the principal and interest of the claim established by the judgment of the previous suit in this case is limited to the remainder of the principal and interest in this case.