1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 109,097,453 and KRW 74,725,719 among them, from April 11, 1998 to April 207.

1. The judgment of June 11, 2007 that "the defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 109,097,453 won and 74,725,719 won from April 11, 1998 to April 6, 2007, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment" that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff money at each rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment" (hereinafter referred to as "advance judgment").

7. 25. Finality was established.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2

2. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case with the same content as the preceding judgment for the interruption of extinctive prescription. Since the benefit of the lawsuit is recognized, it is so decided as per Disposition.

3. Defendant D’s assertion argues that Defendant D’s heir was omitted and declared in the Defendant on the ground that the preceding judgment had died of Defendant E, who was the first lawsuit, the Changwon District Court Decision 96Da33924, which was the first lawsuit, and that part of the Defendants were partially repaid until April 10, 1998, and that Defendant A corporation should confirm the amount of additional repayment.

On the other hand, the facts that the preceding judgment became final and conclusive are as seen above, and therefore, Defendant D’s assertion of the circumstances that occurred prior to May 28, 2007, which was the date of closing the argument in the preceding judgment, is contrary to the res judicata of the preceding judgment, and therefore, is without merit.

In addition, if there is an additional repayment after the date of closing argument of the preceding judgment, such fact should be proved by the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant D's assertion is not accepted.