1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd., and B, jointly and severally 664,117,800 won and 350,000,000 won among them.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the facts constituting the cause of the claim in the separate sheet can be recognized.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the same indemnity as the written order.

B. Defendant D asserts to the effect that, as the lessee transferred the building and claimed insurance money after the expiration of the warranty period of Defendant D, Defendant D’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant D is unreasonable.

According to the statements in Gap evidence 1-1-3, defendant D, in the previous lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2004Kadan153897, Seoul High Court 2005Na66826, Supreme Court 2006Da28553, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28553) against the plaintiff's claim for indemnity on the ground that the tenant transferred the building after the expiration of the insurance period, but it can be recognized that the defendant D's claim was not accepted.

In general, when a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the court or the parties cannot make a judgment or assertion contrary to the final and conclusive judgment, and such final and conclusive judgment shall enter into force on the basis of the standard time of oral arguments

Therefore, Defendant D’s assertion is contrary to the previous lawsuit and is therefore groundless.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted for reasons of the conclusion.