1. The defendant's KRW 22,846,850 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 31, 2005 to April 5, 2006.

1. The facts in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2 asserted by the plaintiff as the cause of the claim in this case can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,846,850, and the amount of damages for delay calculated by applying 5% per annum from December 31, 2005 to April 5, 2006 and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s assertion argues to the effect that the amount claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive and its calculation is unclear in light of the background of the traffic accident that served as the basis of the instant claim.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription shall not re-examine whether the plaintiff satisfies all the requirements for claiming the established right, since the judgment in favor of the new suit is res judicata and the judgment in favor of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Thus, the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription shall not re-examine whether the established right is satisfied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010, etc.). Thus, insofar as the judgment in the prior suit became final and conclusive to have the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Defendant, insofar as the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement exists, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit in the instant lawsuit brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.