1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 253,598,629 and KRW 35,461,94 among them. From October 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of the cause of the instant claim are as stated in the separate sheet, and the facts of the cause of the instant claim are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers).

2. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 253,598,629 won with 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment; 35,537,354 won with 17% per annum from February 9, 1995 to October 22, 1995; 18% per annum from the next day to February 13, 1997; 25% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The defendants asserted that under the guarantee contract, there is no sign on which they have written their names and addresses as joint and several sureties under the guarantee contract, and they are not a guarantee contract that does not specify the maximum amount of obligations provided for in the Special Act on the Protection of Surety, and that the plaintiff cannot claim the validity of the guarantee contract or the payment of insurance money against the defendants, since the defendant's resident registration number was erroneously stated.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional circumstances such as the interruption of prescription, a new suit is allowed.

In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription of the claim established by the previous judgment, as seen earlier.