1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 324,853,110 and KRW 244,400,60 among them, from September 28, 2001 to September 203.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 5-1, No. 5-2, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendants with Seoul Central District Court 2003Kadan414205, Jun. 8, 2004, with the judgment that “The Defendant jointly and severally filed a claim against the Plaintiff for reimbursement of KRW 292,020,349, and KRW 290,376,440, whichever is earlier, from September 28, 2001 to April 16, 2003, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment that “the payment of the amount by 16% per annum from April 17, 2003 to April 16, 2003” and the above judgment is established as of July 28, 2004.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 6, even after the above judgment became final and conclusive, the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 738,860 to the legal procedure cost can be recognized.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the purpose of the extension of the prescription of the claim pursuant to the above judgment, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount that the plaintiff has partially repaid and the legal procedure costs of 738,860 won plus 324,853,110 won and 244,40,60 won among them, 18% per annum from September 28, 2001 to April 16, 2003, and 16% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

As to this, Defendant B contests that the Plaintiff did not show the entire guarantee document, and Defendant C did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any capacity to perform the obligation and therefore, even if there are special circumstances such as the interruption of prescription, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, and thus, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied. In order to dispute the final and conclusive legal relationship in the subsequent suit, the court of the previous suit filed a legitimate appeal against the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit.