1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 296,931,506 and KRW 100,000 among them, from June 27, 2017 to November 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 11, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for lease fee claim against the Seoul Central District Court 2007Da301772, and the said court rendered a ruling that the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from August 22, 2007 to the date of full payment. The said ruling became final and conclusive on January 8, 2008.

B. As of June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff’s delay damages as of June 26, 2017 are KRW 196,931,506 (=100,000,000 x 20% x 9%) (309/365,00).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 2

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of damages for delay from June 27, 2017 to the Plaintiff who filed a lawsuit again for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the said final judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”) and the principal amount of KRW 296,931,506 pursuant to the said judgment.

B. As to this, Defendant B claimed that Defendant B was exempted from the responsibility of Defendant B, on October 19, 2017 by filing a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017da70025, and the aforementioned decision became final and conclusive on November 4, 2017.

The fact that the plaintiff's claim of this case is not entered in the list of creditors in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure is not disputed between the parties. The above Seoul Central District Court 2007Da301772 is not going through service by public notice, and in light of the fact that the defendant B directly received the litigation documents (an amendment) on October 23, 2007 in the process, the defendant B did not enter the existence of the claim of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith even though he knew of the existence of the claim of this case before immunity is granted. Thus, the claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claim of Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Defendant B is difficult to name creditors at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity.