1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 20,830,260 won and the period from November 16, 2006 to February 15, 2007.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and according to the contents of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant Eul who jointly and severally guaranteed the liability for indemnity of the warranty insurance contract with the plaintiff Eul Co., Ltd. which concluded the warranty insurance contract with the plaintiff, under the Daejeon District Court 2006Gadan82424, and the above court rendered a judgment as above (hereinafter "final judgment of the previous suit of this case"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the above warranty claim against the defendants.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 20,830,260 won and 19% interest per annum from November 16, 2006 to February 15, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Defendant B’s defense defense defense to the effect that the signature of the joint and several surety column of the defect warranty insurance contract was forged.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription.

In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case cannot be deliberated on the Defendant B’s defense, which is the cause of health care unit and the subsequent suit. Therefore, the said defense ought to be rejected without need to further examine.

3. Conclusion against the Defendants.