2. The Plaintiff succeeds from the deceased AC.

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the deceased AC (the deceased on August 18, 2006, hereinafter "the deceased") seeking the payment of the claim for reimbursement (the principal of KRW 45,000,000, hereinafter "the claim of this case") with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da76574, which was decided in favor of the court on July 6, 2006, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 28, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against only six Defendants, including Defendants B, R, S, T, U, and RD, with Suwon District Court 2016Kadan25160, seeking payment of each of the instant claims (each of KRW 1/6 (each of KRW 7,500,000), and the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the same effect on December 25, 2017, and thereafter became final and conclusive at that time.

The deceased AD died on November 20, 2017, and the heir is the defendant V and W, who is the child.

C. However, at the time of the deceased’s death, the deceased AE (Death on March 25, 201), the deceased AF (Death on May 21, 201), and the deceased AG (Death on January 25, 2010), other than the Defendant in Suwon District Court 2016Kadan25160, was additionally added.

On the other hand, the deceased AE’s heir has Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (name K prior to the opening of the name), and the deceased AF’s heir has Defendant M, N,O, P, and Q, the spouse of the defendant L and children, and the deceased AG’s heir has Defendant X and children, the spouse of the deceased. The deceased AG’s heir has Defendant Y, A, AB, and the deceased AH.

The deceased AH died on December 5, 2010, and his heir has the Defendant Z, a child.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant part of the suit ex officio as to Defendant B, R, S, T, U,V, and W.

A. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the relevant legal doctrine has res judicata effect, a person who is subject to res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party to the previous suit becomes final and conclusive.