1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant A: 32,141,738 won

B. Defendants B, C, and D are inherited from the network E.

1. The facts stated in the annexed sheet Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers) that the plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim in this case may be acknowledged according to the purport of the whole pleadings and the records as to the cause of the claim in this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant A is jointly and severally liable with Defendant A to pay KRW 10,713,912 out of the above money within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, as the remainder of damages for delay, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 10,713,912 out of the above money.

2. Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A’s claim against Defendant A is alleged to the effect that the person who actually purchased the vehicle in bulk is F, and thus, Defendant A has no obligation to pay the amount of indemnity. However, the final and conclusive judgment in favor of Defendant A has res judicata effect, and thus, the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription cannot re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right have been satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). As long as it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against Defendant A exists in the judgment in the previous suit of this case brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription, Defendant A cannot re-examine the above grounds as asserted by Defendant A, and the above argument by

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and this is accepted.