1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 37,296,508 and KRW 2,400,00 among them, 29% per annum from March 31, 2003 to the date of full payment, and 5.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff was transferred from each financial institution to the defendant, and thereafter, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim for the transfer amount, and confirmed the fact that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37,296,508 won and 2,400,000 won among them shall be 29% per annum from March 31, 2003 to the day of full payment, 5,750,70 won per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment, 29% per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment, 25,739,431 won shall be paid at the rate of 25% per annum from March 31, 2003 to the day of full payment."

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 29% interest per annum for 37,296,508 won and 2,400,770 won as stated in the disposition from March 31, 2003 to the date of full payment, 29% per annum for 5,750,770 won per annum from June 30, 2003 to the date of full payment, 29% per annum for 25% interest per annum for 25,739,431 won from March 31, 2003 to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the extinctive prescription of the above claim has expired. However, as seen earlier, the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on November 11, 2006 against the defendant and the judgment ordering the payment thereof became final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment is ten years. Thus, it is obvious that the lawsuit in this case was filed on September 20, 2016, which was ten years before the date the above judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.