1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A Co., Ltd.: KRW 86,009,142 and KRW 39,227,80 among them:

B. Defendant B is the defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim in this case may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the entries in the attached Form No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, which the plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim in this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from October 14, 2005 to May 23, 2006 and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, to the Plaintiff who acquired the first creditor financial institution’s claim, and to the Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 52,000,000 won among the above money and 15,734,864 won among the above money, within the limit of 130,00,000 won, and 61,190,736 won and 23,492,936 won among them, to the 15,00,000 won per annum from the following day to the date of full payment. Defendant B, jointly and severally with Defendant A Co., Ltd., shall be liable to pay damages for delay from the date of full payment to 20,005.

[Defendant B is liable for joint and several liability obligations from Defendant A Co., Ltd.; thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable. As seen below, our L non-misunderstanding specialized in the transfer of claims against the Defendants under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Da361206, which became final and conclusive by having filed a lawsuit claiming the transfer amount and rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants. The final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendants cannot re-examine whether the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription has res judicata effect and all of the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). As long as the judgment in the previous suit becomes final and conclusive to have a claim for the transfer of claims against Defendant B against the Defendants, the said judgment shall not re-examine whether the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendants satisfies the requirements for the interruption of extinctive prescription.