1. The defendant's KRW 30,453,870 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 21, 2008 to April 24, 2009.

On August 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C with the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap79291 (hereinafter “prior case”), and the court of first instance of the prior case accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim on April 24, 2009, and rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from August 21, 2008 to April 24, 2009; and that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 267,453,780 won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; and that from August 23, 2009 to the day of complete payment, the appellate court of the prior case shall additionally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 63,00,000,000, and that part of the record of the case shall be revoked by the lower court from August 24, 2008 to the day of complete payment.”

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the lawsuit in this case is a second suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,453,870 won (=267,453,780 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 21, 2008 to April 24, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff may have been repaid part of the claims established by the judgment of the preceding case prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.