1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 per annum from October 16, 2003 to January 28, 2005.

1. The facts in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 5 can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money recorded in the order to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that there is no embezzlement of the price for the goods collected from the customer of the lender industry corporation. The lawsuit of this case is to prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription based on the judgment which became final and conclusive on May 18, 2006 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gadan9041 delivered on April 19, 2006). Thus, as long as the existence and amount of the claim against the defendant is determined in the above final and conclusive judgment, the fact that the damage of the lender industry corporation due to the embezzlement of the defendant, which is a legal requirement that affects the res judicata effect effect of the previous lawsuit, cannot be re-examine in the lawsuit of this case, and in order to dispute the legal relationship of the previous lawsuit, the res judicata effect shall be extinguished as to the judgment in favor of the previous lawsuit first, and in this case, unless there is any evidence supporting that the defendant has extinguished the res judicata effect as to the judgment which became final and conclusive, the court may not render any other judgment.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.