1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant A, the part concerning the claim as indicated in the attached table Nos. 1 through 2, 4, and 8 in the attached table column.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Applicable provisions;

(a) As to Defendant A: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): Decision on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Since a judgment in favor of a party to which a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has become final and conclusive has res judicata effect, where the party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the previous suit files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit in the lawsuit for interruption of prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). ex officio, the Plaintiff was already rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant A on September 28, 2006 by the court 2006Da22790, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim based on the above judgment became final and conclusive based on the date of closing argument of this case has expired. Accordingly, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant A as indicated in the table No. 1 through 2, and 4 through 8 in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting the rights.

Therefore, this part of the claim is dismissed.