1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 69,00,000 and the interest rate from January 1, 2009 to the day of full payment.

1. In full view of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the facts without any dispute, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants and F, etc. claiming the order of a building (U.S. District Court Decision 2008Da7613). On July 11, 2008, in the above lawsuit, conciliation has been completed with the same content as the statement in the attached conciliation clause between the plaintiff, the defendants, and F (hereinafter “instant conciliation”). The conciliation clause (3) of this case provides that “the defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 69 million won until December 31, 2008, and if the above payment date is not made, the plaintiff shall pay damages for delay calculated by adding 10% per annum from January 1, 2009 to the date of full payment.”

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 69 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from January 1, 2009 to the date of full payment. Since the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired after the conciliation of this case, filing a lawsuit again for the interruption of extinctive prescription is the benefit of protection of rights.

2. As to the determination of the defendants' defense, the defendants asserted that since the establishment of the mediation of this case, the plaintiff brought KRW 20 million to the lease deposit of the defendant Eul corporation, and arbitrarily disposed of the plaintiff's clothes, spirits, etc., a significant portion of the amount claimed by the plaintiff was repaid.

On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize the repayment of the Defendants’ assertion or the fact of payment in kind, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Therefore, the aforementioned defense by the Defendants is justified.