1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for KRW 41,089,673 and KRW 25,335,717 among them:

B. Defendant A and B shall:

1. Claims against the defendant A and B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The facts in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 9 can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in the separate sheet No. 1 to 9. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant A and B to pay the Plaintiff 41,089,673 won and 25,335,717 won with 24% interest per annum from November 2, 2001 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, Defendant C only signed on the joint and several guarantee column for the instant loan documents by coercion of the New Network Credit Cooperatives D, and the said Defendant’s joint and several guarantee for the instant loan is null and void. Thus, the said Defendant’s aforementioned Defendant’s joint and several guarantee cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the joint and several guarantee of the instant loan obligations

In light of the records and the purport of evidence evidence No. 9 and the whole pleadings, the reorganization finance corporation, a non-party corporation, a transferee of the claim for the loan of this case from the above new credit union, filed a lawsuit against the defendant C to claim the payment of the loan of this case under the court 2004da5085, and obtained a favorable judgment on December 23, 2004. The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 17, 2005, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case based on the above final and conclusive judgment. Thus, if there exists a final and conclusive judgment, the assertion or defense that occurred and could have been submitted prior to the date of closing argument in the same judgment is interrupted by the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment, and the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment was rendered cannot assert the same cause against the contents of the final judgment,

Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. If so, the plaintiff is the defendants.