1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 124,668,058 and KRW 54,463,197 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, including the loans, etc., with the court 2005da60937, and was sentenced to the judgment of this court on December 1, 2005 that "the Defendant jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff 163,396,098 won and 12,194,299 won among them, an amount equivalent to 24% per annum from August 17, 2005 to the date of full payment, and to KRW 54,463,197 among them, an amount equivalent to 17% per annum from August 17, 2005 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On April 16, 1996, the Plaintiff concluded a loan with Defendant A at the interest rate of KRW 50,000,000 per annum 13.5% per annum, and damages for delay at 19% per annum under Defendant B’s joint and several sureties (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and the Plaintiff provided a loan to Defendant A at the interest rate of KRW 50,000 per annum.

The part related to the loan contract of this case among the amounts ordered in the judgment of this Court No. 2005da60937 of this Court was the part that "the defendants jointly and severally paid to the plaintiff 124,68,058 won and 54,463,197 won with 17% interest per annum from August 17, 2005 to the date of full payment."

C. The Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff the part related to the instant loan agreement out of the amount ordered in the above judgment up to now.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in which the expiration date of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the above judgment expired.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 124,68,058 won and 54,463,197 won with interest of 17% per annum from August 17, 2005 to the date of full payment. The lawsuit of this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription is also acknowledged.

Defendant B set up a defense that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s loan claim based on the instant loan agreement has expired, but the said judgment is rendered on the loan claim established by judgment.