1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 100,000,000 won and the period from June 3, 2005 to October 23, 2006.

If it has become practically difficult to enforce compulsory execution due to the excessive ten-year lapse of the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on a final judgment, a judicial claim can be made for the interruption of extinctive prescription, regardless of whether it was possible to enforce compulsory execution prior to that time.

(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the return of embezzlement under the court 2006Gadan48303, Dec. 22, 2006, and the Defendant jointly and severally paid 10 million won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from Oct. 26, 2004 to Oct. 23, 2006; and 20% per annum from the next day to Oct. 23, 2006.

"The judgment of this case (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") was pronounced with no pleading, ② the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on February 16, 2007, ③ the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from October 26, 2004 to June 2, 2005, respectively. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won from June 3, 2005 to October 23, 2006, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, to the day of complete payment, and the plaintiff is also liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 10 million won per annum from the judgment of this case to June 26, 2004 to June 26, 2005 to the day of complete payment. Furthermore, the judgment of this case is acknowledged as the plaintiff as the judgment of this case to prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the claim of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.