1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30 million with 5% per annum from December 9, 1999 to August 29, 2007, and thereafter.

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim for indemnity amount of the Daegu District Court Branch of 2006Kadan18776, Sep. 28, 2007. The judgment of Sep. 28, 2007 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won and interest in the lawsuit amounting to 5% per annum from Dec. 9, 1999 to Aug. 29, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." Since the above judgment became final and conclusive on Oct. 24, 2007, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff money in accordance with the above final judgment, and since the lawsuit of this case (payment order) was filed for the extension of the claim under the final judgment, there is interest in the lawsuit.

Therefore, according to the above final judgment, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 5% interest per annum from December 9, 1999 to August 29, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion is asserted to the purport that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement based on the above final judgment is irrelevant to the defendant, and there is no ground to accept the plaintiff's claim.

The defendant's above assertion is exceptionally permitted in cases where there are special circumstances, such as murdering and interrupting prescription, due to the absence of a claim against the defendant against the defendant or the non-existence of a claim against the defendant. In such a case, the judgment of the new lawsuit shall not conflict with the judgment in favor of the previous lawsuit. Thus, the court in the subsequent lawsuit may not re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da6157, Oct. 28, 2010; 2012Da11340, Apr. 11, 2013). As seen earlier, insofar as the existence of a claim for indemnity against the plaintiff against the defendant in the final and conclusive judgment of the previous lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, the defendant is not the defendant.