1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A is jointly and severally and severally with the network D to the extent of KRW 15,951,313, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D with the Seoul Western District Court 2006Kadan33046, and on August 25, 2006, the above court sentenced D to the judgment that "D shall jointly and severally with C to the plaintiff 20,815,187 won and its 14,237,300 won with 17% interest per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment was finalized on September 16, 2006.

B. D: (a) died on October 22, 2014; (b) as the first heir, the Defendants were children; and (c) Defendant A filed a qualified acceptance report with the Jung-gu District Court 2016 Goyang-Ma1672; and (d) filed a qualified acceptance report.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant A: A without dispute; entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings; Defendant B: by service by publication (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the above facts of recognition, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, Defendant A is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from May 31, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the 15,951,313 (hereinafter the same shall apply) equivalent to the 1/3 of the total amount of the principal and interest of the claim based on the above judgment, and the principal amount thereof, which is the 4,745,7666 won, among the principal and interest of the claim based on the above judgment, to the Plaintiff. Defendant B is jointly and severally and severally liable with C to pay damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from May 31, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Defendant A asserted that the above judgment claim against the Plaintiff’s deceased D has expired by prescription. However, for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription of the above judgment claim, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on September 7, 2016, which was 10 years from September 16, 2006, which was the date when the said judgment became final and conclusive, is apparent in the record, and thus, the statute of limitations of the above judgment claim was interrupted.

Ultimately, the defendant A's defense is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are justified.