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

A. On September 8, 2006, the defendant filed a lawsuit against C (hereinafter referred to as the "C") and D and the plaintiffs, the Seoul Central District Court 2006Da339930, Apr. 27, 2007, "the defendant (including the plaintiffs of this case) shall jointly and severally receive 34,934,732 won from the plaintiff (the defendant of this case) and 34,75,892 won from December 28, 2001 to May 31, 2005, with 18% per annum from the next day to December 15, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment" (hereinafter referred to as the "the judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case").

B. The judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive on May 19, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. On the ground that the plaintiffs sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation cited in the judgment of the previous suit of this case against the defendant, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it constitutes the ground that occurred before the closing of argument in the judgment of the previous suit of this case and thus, constitutes a claim contrary to the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.

In this case, the plaintiffs asserted that, in other words, C had the Defendant’s credit guarantee certificate as collateral but did not receive a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea, it did not have any obligation for reimbursement against the Defendant, and thus, C requested confirmation of the absence of the obligation ordered in the judgment of the previous suit of this case.

However, if the judgment in the previous suit is the judgment against the plaintiffs, it shall not be judged inconsistent with the res judicata of the final judgment, on the ground that there is no benefit in the lawsuit to dismiss the same new suit due to the binding force.