(a) Indication of claims: To describe the relevant part of the grounds for the modified claims in attached Form C;

(b) Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Defendant D’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the facts identical to Defendant D’s corresponding part among the grounds for the modified claims can be acknowledged.

As to this, Defendant D left the instant vehicle owned by Defendant D to a male on his name in order to scrap the vehicle, and thereafter, Defendant C, who is not aware of the Defendant D, caused the instant accident while driving the said vehicle. Accordingly, Defendant D asserted that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

However, since the assertion or defense arising from the grounds that occurred and could have been submitted prior to the closing of argument in the final judgment, it is not allowed for the parties to make a new assertion contrary to the contents of the final judgment due to such reasons as the res judicata of the final judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da3116, Sept. 27, 1988). The defendant's above assertion cannot be allowed as a assertion contrary to the res judicata of the judgment of Suwon District Court Decision 2008Da103928, Apr. 28, 2009.

Therefore, Defendant D’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.