1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 1,697,353,595 and KRW 611,359,314.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a)as shown in the reasons for the recognition in the annexed sheet;

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 1,697,353,595 won and 611,359,314 won per annum from September 29, 2018 to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion

A. Defendant D did not perform the obligation to notify the guarantor when the Plaintiff knows the debtor's credit-related information pursuant to Article 436-2 of the Civil Code and Article 5 of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys. In addition, Defendant D did not perform the obligation to present the debtor's credit information related to the debtor's obligation to the guarantor and obtain the name and seal or signature of the guarantor in writing pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys. Defendant D asserts that since there is no agreement unfavorable to the guarantor pursuant to Article 11 of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys, it is unreasonable for the

B. Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot bring a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to claim the established right have

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). As seen earlier, as long as the existence of the above claim for reimbursement has become final and conclusive in this court’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant D, the interruption of extinctive prescription shall be interrupted.