1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 158,361,837 and this shall apply.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants for the payment order of bills with the Incheon District Court Decision 2009j 569. On January 22, 2009, the above court ordered the Defendants to pay the payment order of KRW 182,234,787 jointly with the Defendants and KRW 20% per annum from April 14, 2009 to the date of full payment. The above payment order was finalized on April 28, 2009.

B. On December 16, 2009, the Plaintiff received 169,96,787 won, excluding KRW 12,238,00,00, 214,80 from April 29 to December 11, 2009, 200 as 81, with the claim amount of KRW 191,256,127, Incheon District Court 2009, 209, 182,234,787 from the claim amount of KRW 12,238,00 as 12,238,00, 200 interest rate of KRW 20,14,80 from April 29 to December 11, 2009 under the payment order, = (169,96,78 x 227 x 365 days x 365 days x 24,201, 294, 209, 209.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party in favor of the party in favor of the former suit re-instigations a lawsuit against the other party in favor of the former suit, in principle, there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year period of prescription, which is the extinction of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment, has expired, there is benefit in the lawsuit only when there are special

Of the grounds for interruption of prescription, the interruption of prescription by seizure may be deemed to have expired when the seizure is cancelled or when the execution procedure is terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017), and the period of prescription shall be deemed to have expired.