1. Of the instant lawsuit, the claim for indemnity that Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. acquired by subrogation on March 28, 2000.

1. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff, based on the payment by subrogation of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance on March 28, 200, acquired a claim for reimbursement ( principal amounting to KRW 32,913,695) based on the payment by Seoul Guarantee Insurance on March 28, 200, and sought the implementation thereof. However, according to the records of this case, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., based on the above claim, filed a claim for reimbursement against the defendant on February 14, 2012 by filing a favorable judgment against the defendant on February 14, 2012, and became final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the claim for reimbursement at multiple times is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

The above part shall be dismissed.

2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment as to the remaining parts, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.: (a) filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant under the court 2004da40748, May 3, 2005 by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant for reimbursement; (b) “The Defendant shall pay to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. 26,585,843 won and 26,283,404 won per annum from April 23, 200 to March 29, 2005; (c) interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; (d) the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. paid the Plaintiff the above claim; (d) the principal and interest of the claim based on the rate of KRW 96,85,843 won as per April 9, 2015; and (e) the Defendant shall be 3085% per annum and 485% per annum from the Plaintiff’s.

(A) The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription was filed on April 16, 2015, for which 10 years have not elapsed since the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the defense of extinctive prescription is without merit).