1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 523,695,204 as well as KRW 9,575,00 among them, from October 18, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the claim for the takeover amount of Cheongju District Court 2008Kadan25282, and on April 2008, "the defendants jointly and severally agreed to the plaintiff 318,454,844 won and 50,000 won among them, with 19% interest per annum from July 31, 2008 to November 18, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, with 49,575,000 won with interest per annum 21.5% interest per annum from July 31, 2008 to the date of full payment." The above judgment against the defendant corporation was finalized with each of the above judgment against the defendant corporation C, which became final and conclusive as to December 25, 2008 and November 18, 2009.

B. As of October 17, 2018, the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants as of October 17, 2018 is as follows.

Serial 1,00,000 general loan 50,000,177,308 250,177,308 on June 19, 1997, the remaining interest rate of the loan principal of the creditor financial institution-based loan 50,00,000,000 bill loan 49,575,000 on June 19, 1997, 223,942,896 273,517,896 273,517,575,000 424,120,204 total sum 523,695,204 / [based on recognition] The fact that there is no dispute against the confession and the defendant C, each of the items of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has res judicata effect, where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

However, in exceptional cases where the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

Furthermore, in such a case, the judgment of the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.

On December 2008, the date when the plaintiff became final and conclusive in the previous suit of this case.