1. Defendant C and D together with the Plaintiff KRW 61,362,772 as well as the year from July 15, 2003 to September 12, 2006.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Kadan252187 on November 30, 2006, and the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant jointly pays 65 million won to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from July 15, 2003 to September 12, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2007.

(2) On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff collected KRW 1,887,800 from Defendant C, and KRW 1,749,428 from Defendant D, respectively, and appropriated the amount to repay the principal of the instant judgment claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay 61,362,772 won (=65,00,000 won - 1,887,800 won - 1,749,428 won) and damages for delay.

2. Determination on the statute of limitations defense

A. The instant judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2007; and the Plaintiff’s 10-year extinctive prescription expired from the Plaintiff’s 10-year extinctive prescription; and on May 23, 2017, the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 23, 2017, is obvious to the party members, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was extinguished by extinctive prescription.

B. (1) On April 27, 2015, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the instant judgment claim, Defendant C and D paid part of the instant judgment amount to the Plaintiff on the grounds that, as seen earlier, the extinctive prescription period of the instant judgment claim against the said Defendants was interrupted.

The plaintiff's second defense is well-grounded, and the extinctive prescription defense of defendant C and D is not reasonable.

(2) However, the fact that the Defendants are jointly liable for the instant judgment amount.