The instant lawsuit against Defendant F and G shall be dismissed.

The Plaintiff

A. The defendant B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred by the defendant B, C, and D.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleading in the descriptions of evidence No. 1, No. 10, and No. 1, No. 10, and No. 1, as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant F and G.

A. On September 30, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against Nonparty He and Defendant B, C, D, and E, etc., Seoul District Court Decision 98Da291347, which rendered a favorable judgment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 199.

B. In order to extend the prescription period, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of reimbursement with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kadan196615, which rendered a favorable judgment on October 9, 2009, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

At the time, the Plaintiff did not include Nonparty He in the Defendant, and H had already died in around 2006, and H’s inheritors including Defendant F and G had received the decision of inheritance limited recognition on March 30, 2006 as Busan District Court Family Branch Order 2006Mo2828 on March 30, 2006.

The lawsuit of this case against Defendant F and G is a lawsuit against part of Nonparty He’s heir, which was brought to the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan196615.

However, the parties to the final and conclusive judgment did not include Non-Party H.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in case where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party in a lawsuit again files a claim identical to the previous suit in favor of the other party 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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018). However, the instant lawsuit against Defendant F and G cannot be deemed the same as the previous suit that became final and conclusive (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da196615). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a benefit as a lawsuit for interruption of extinctive prescription.

On the other hand, however,