1. The defendant's KRW 49,500,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 5, 1999 to April 13, 2007.

1. The Seoul Central District Court 2007Gadan6299 decided May 15, 2007 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 49,50,000 won with 5% per annum from February 5, 1999 to April 13, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," which became final and conclusive on June 5, 2007, and the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of prescription due to the interruption of 10 years based on the final and conclusive judgment by the plaintiff's ten-year extinctive prescription may be recognized either by this court or by the entire purport of entry of evidence No. 1 and all pleadings.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 49,500,000 won with 5% per annum from February 5, 1999 to April 13, 2007 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant did not cross without permission in relation to the traffic accident in the final claim amount, and thus, the defendant does not have a duty to claim reimbursement against the plaintiff. However, the final judgment in favor of the defendant has res judicata effect and the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription can not re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). As long as the judgment in the prior suit becomes final and conclusive to have a claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff against the defendant in the lawsuit in this case brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription, the defendant's argument cannot be re-examined as to

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.