1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,773,034 and KRW 32,905,184 among them, annually, from April 11, 2006 to November 30, 2012.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it is recognized that the same fact as the description of the cause of the claim (However, "creditor" and "debtor" refer to "the plaintiff," respectively) is recognized (hereinafter "claim for indemnity claim of this case"). Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 33,773,034 and 32,905,184, which is the date of subrogation, 15% per annum from April 11, 2006 to November 30, 2012, the agreed delay interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from the following day to November 31, 2016, the delay interest rate of KRW 10% per annum from the next day to August 22, 2016, which is the date of delivery of the original copy of the order for payment of this case, and the delay interest rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of this case.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the ten-year extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity of this case has expired, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 6, the Plaintiff appears to be erroneous in the text of the judgment of this court No. 2006Gadan24553, May 19, 2006, which filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for indemnity of this case against the Defendant under the court No. 2006Gadan24553, Jul. 27, 2006, which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity of this case on July 27, 2006.

It can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 12, 2006 after being sentenced Eul. According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity of this case shall begin from August 12, 2006 when the judgment became final and conclusive from the date of the above lawsuit to the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive. Since the application for the payment order of this case was filed on July 28, 2016 before the expiration of the ten-year extinctive prescription period, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.