2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy of future mutual savings banks of the company as shown in the reasons for the claim, and future mutual savings banks of the company filed a loan claim lawsuit against the defendant as the reasons for the claim ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Da53587, hereinafter "the former suit of this case") and the above court rendered a ruling accepting the entire claim of the above bank on November 8, 2006, and it is recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid interest or delay damages amounting to KRW 29,39,644, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant alleged that B used the defendant's seal to appropriate it and concluded a joint and several surety contract with the future mutual savings bank of Korea, and the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

B. Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot bring a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to claim the established right have

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is groundless on the ground that the cause for non-performance of the obligation exists at the time the judgment of the previous suit was rendered on a claim, the existence of which became final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment, and disputing the existence of the obligation to perform by asserting the cause for non-performance of the obligation, which

3. Full acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim