1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 32,968,077 won and the Plaintiff’s 13.0% per annum from November 30, 2002 to December 30, 2002.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the claim for the guaranteed debt amount of 2004da20608 with the Ulsan District Court. On January 19, 2005, the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment with the purport that “The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 40 million won and 13.5% per annum from November 30, 2002 to December 30, 2002, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter the judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case).

(2) The Defendants paid KRW 7,031,923 out of the obligations pursuant to the judgment of the previous suit of this case.

3) On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment of the previous suit of this case. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

B. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 32,968,077 won (40,000,000-7,031,923 won) and 13.5% per annum from November 30, 2002 to December 30, 2002, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. Defendant A and the Plaintiff’s loan manager in collusion with Defendant B, which stated that “temporary joint and several sureties are carried out, and no damage is inflicted,” had Defendant B stand joint and several sureties.

Therefore, the above joint and several sureties of Defendant B is null and void.

B. In special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, where a new suit is exceptionally allowed based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the judgment in favor of the winning court, the judgment of the new suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit may re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right have been satisfied.