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

A. On December 16, 2001, the Plaintiff loaned the Defendants KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 2150,000,000 in total, KRW 2150,000,000 to the Defendants. On November 2002, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendants. On November 16, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Defendants, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Da5347, which won a favorable judgment on November 16, 2005, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 31, 2005.

B. Defendant B reported 14 claims, including the Plaintiff’s above loan claims and confirmed on February 18, 2009 upon the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da41639, which became final and conclusive on February 3, 2009. Defendant C reported 12 claims, including the Plaintiff’s above loan claims, and the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da14329, Sept. 1, 2006, which became final and conclusive on September 16, 2006.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, 3-2, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3

2. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of the statute of limitations for the loans against the Defendants, which became final and conclusive by the judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”), the Defendants asserted that the immunity decision became final and conclusive.

According to the above facts of recognition, since each of the above immunity decisions becomes effective against the claim of this case, the defendants were exempted from liability based on the claim of this case against the plaintiff, and eventually, the claims of this case were naturally liable and lost the ability and executive capacity of filing a lawsuit which has ordinary claims.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in protecting the rights, and it is so decided as per Disposition.