- -

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants as Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap54769 on June 27, 2007. The above court rendered a final judgment on February 22, 2008 as follows: "The defendant jointly and severally filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the amount to be received from the defendants as to "459,129,680 won and 268,308,114 won and 268,308,308,114 won with the plaintiff, from May 12, 1998 to December 4, 2007; the defendant Eul was from January 8, 2008 to August 16, 2007; and the defendant C was 18% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."

According to the above facts, Defendant A Co., Ltd. is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B and C to pay the amount stated in paragraph (1) of this Article to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, upon the Plaintiff’s request to discontinue the completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim based on

B. As to the Defendant A’s assertion, the Defendant Company A asserts that the re-instigation of the same claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription should not be permissible.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party to whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has been rendered files a lawsuit against the other party for the same claim as the previous lawsuit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting the 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987; 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). Such a legal doctrine still is reasonable at present.

Other causes for interruption of extinctive prescription.