1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 93 million and KRW 90 million from November 28, 2006.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the claim for loans with this Court Order 2006Kadan4659, and was sentenced on March 22, 2007, “The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KRW 93,000,000 and KRW 90,000,000, whichever is applicable, Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from November 28, 2006 to March 4, 2007, and Defendant C shall pay the amount from March 4, 2007 to each full payment date” (hereinafter “the previous judgment”).

The above judgment was finalized on April 17, 2007.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 93 million from November 28, 2006 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 4, 2007 to the date of full payment. Meanwhile, the instant lawsuit filed for the purpose of the extension of prescription due to the excessive completion of the extinctive prescription after the final and conclusive judgment of the instant case is entitled to the benefit of protection of rights.

2. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable, since it did not provide joint and several sureties with respect to the loan obligation of the principal obligor D Co., Ltd.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, in principle, the parties cannot file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, or in exceptional circumstances such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, a new suit shall be exceptionally allowed. In such a case, the judgment in a new suit shall not conflict with 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 are satisfied

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the previous lawsuit was initiated by service by public notice against Defendant C, this Court Decision 2006Da46659, supra.