1. The Plaintiff:

A. The defendant A and B jointly share 195,361,821 won and 100,39,511 won among them.

1. The facts stated in the separate sheet of “the cause of application” as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions in Gap 1, 2, and 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on May 3, 2005 against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da366792, which rendered a favorable judgment. The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 25, 2005, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit prior to May 25, 2015, where the extinctive prescription period expires for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity that became final and conclusive, the instant lawsuit can be recognized as a re-instigation of suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and B are jointly and severally liable for damages under Article 1-1 of the Disposition.

The money stated in paragraph (1) is jointly and severally deposited with Defendant A and B Co., Ltd.

have the obligation to pay the money set forth in the subsection.

2. On October 27, 1990, the defendants asserted that the defendants' assertion against the defendants' assertion that the house, which had been living with the factory due to the suspension of current account transaction on October 27, 1990, is transferred to the creditor group and the surrounding organization is settled and a new life is maintained. However, it is improper to file a lawsuit against the defendants before the 30-year period since there is no notification of the obligations. Furthermore, the defendant C does not completely associate with the obligations of this case.

Even in cases where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter as a final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive exceptionally due to special circumstances, such as the following cases, interruption of prescription, etc., 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 the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340 Decided April 11, 2013, etc.). Therefore, this Court cannot render a judgment in conflict with the res judicata effect of the judgment on the claim amount, which became final and conclusive, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da366792.