(a) in collaboration with A and B 4,368,196 won;

(b) 37,316,122 Won in collaboration with B, respectively.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2-2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. with the Changwon District Court 2007Da11463, Sep. 4, 2007 with the court "18,972,79 won jointly and severally for the plaintiff, and 17,978,794 won among them, and 18% per annum from October 23, 1995 to June 22, 1997; 25% per annum from the following day to June 9, 2007; 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; 305% per annum from the date of the above judgment to the date of full payment; 30% per annum from the date of the defendant et al. to the date of full payment; 305% per annum from the date of the above judgment to the date of full payment."

Meanwhile, with respect to the above claim (i) obligation, the Plaintiff paid from the Defendant as shown in the Attachment No. 1, and the remaining delay damages as a result of appropriation are KRW 44,268,196 (= KRW 993,05 (= KRW 18,972,799 - KRW 17,978,794) - KRW 17,374,159). (ii) The remaining delay damages as a result of appropriation as described in the Attachment No. 2 are KRW 37,316,122 [= KRW 31,350,103 [= KRW 46,186,678 - KRW 14,836,575]]. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s person.

The fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case again for the interruption of extinctive prescription after ten-year lapse, which is the period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above final judgment, is obvious in the record.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 44,368,196 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 37,316,122 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 37,316,122 to the Plaintiff.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.