1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and D on March 21, 2008 with respect to KRW 45,00,000 and the designated parties D on March 21, 2008.

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter the plaintiff) and the appointed party D filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the purchase price under the Jung-gu District Court 2007Ga61434 (hereinafter the "prior case") on May 23, 2008, and the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendants jointly and severally paid 45 million won to the plaintiffs and interest thereon, and 5% per annum from March 21, 2008 to May 23, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to May 28, 2008, the above judgment was served by public notice to the defendants on May 28, 2008, and it became final and conclusive by the District Court 200Do1781, Jun. 28, 2008.

According to the above facts of recognition, the lawsuit of this case is instituted for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment of the preceding case, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 45,000,000 won to the plaintiff (appointed party) and D, and 5% per annum from March 21, 2008 to May 23, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendants asserted that the claim based on the judgment of the preceding case had already been extinguished due to the lapse of the statute of limitations.

On the other hand, the claim based on the judgment of the preceding case was suspended from the filing date of the preceding case by the plaintiff and the selected person D, and the extinctive prescription of 10 years again from June 11, 2008, which is the date when the judgment of the preceding case became final and conclusive. Since it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 30, 2018, which was before the tenth anniversary thereof, the aforementioned defense by the defendants is reasonable.