A. As to the defendant A's KRW 32,138,00 and KRW 30,974,459 among them, the defendant A shall be from June 20, 200 to November 4, 2005.

A. The judgment of the preceding instance had a claim for indemnity due to subrogation against the defendant A and the deceased F, as stated in the reasons for the claim in the attached Form. Accordingly, the judgment of the preceding instance became final and conclusive on January 17, 2006 by filing a lawsuit against the defendant A and the deceased F by the court 2005da169433.

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). B.

The F’s death and inheritance relationship (1) F (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on April 17, 2010. The deceased’s bereaved family members were G and H, a child, G and H. However, on April 29, 2010, the Seoul Family Method Board 2010Mo3693 reported the renunciation of inheritance, and on June 10, 2010, the said report was accepted.

On the other hand, the father(I) and the mother(J had already died before the death of the deceased. The sibling(9) of the deceased had K, Defendant 2 B, Defendant 3 C, Defendant 4D, L (L), N, N,O, Defendant 5 E (E, P), and Q.

(2) However, K, L (M) andO had already died before the deceased’s death.

On the other hand, O and Q reported the renunciation of inheritance on July 15, 2010 as Seoul Family Method Board 2010 Ma5963, and on August 4, 2010, C and D reported the renunciation of inheritance on July 21, 2016 as Seoul Family Method Board 2016 Ma6454, and they accepted the said report on November 4, 2016.

On May 8, 2017, Defendant E (PP) filed a report on inheritance limited recognition with the Seoul Family Court 2017-Ma3849, which was accepted on April 13, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-2, Eul 1's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, and facts that are obvious to this court

2. According to the above facts of recognition, in a case where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription, which is the period of the claim based on the previous judgment of this case, has expired, the benefit of a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Defendant A as the primary debtor, and co-inheritors, such as Defendant B, etc., who inherited the deceased’s joint and several liability, jointly and severally with Defendant A and the Plaintiff