1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 34,216,40 and 5% per annum from September 24, 2004 to October 27, 2007.

1. Indication of claims against Defendant B and C: The description of the grounds for the claims as shown in the attached Form;

Confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claim against the defendant A;

A. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da308438, Nov. 20, 2007, and received a favorable or final judgment from the above court that "the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 34,216,40 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 24, 2004 to October 27, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and the plaintiff filed a new lawsuit against the defendants for the extension of the prescription period of claims based on the above judgment.

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason.

B. As to this, Defendant A asserts to the effect that it is only a victim due to the tort committed by D, B, and C, and that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement. However, even in a case where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as an exceptionally established favorable judgment due to special circumstances such as 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 the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the established requirements are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11340, Apr. 11, 2013). The above Defendant’s assertion is without merit without having to further examine.