1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,117,691 among the Plaintiff and KRW 4,181,88 among them, shall be 18% per annum from March 21, 2001 to May 31, 2005.

Each fact in the attached Form No. 1 to 5 that the Plaintiff claims as the cause of the claim may be acknowledged by the respective entry in the attached Form No. 1 to 5 and by the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the lapse of the period of extinctive prescription of claim for indemnity based on a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2005Da3729

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 45,117,691 (amounting to KRW 93,010 for delay delay damages of KRW 40,842,793 for the balance of principal) and KRW 4,181,88 for the agreed delay interest rate of KRW 18% for the agreed delay interest rate from March 21, 2001 to May 31, 2005; KRW 15% for the agreed delay interest rate from the following day to February 22, 2006; and KRW 20% for the year from the next day to June 20, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the original of the instant payment order; and KRW 15% for delay damages calculated by the annual rate of 15% for the promotion, etc. of litigation under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Civil Procedure from the next day to the day of complete payment.

In regard to this, the defendant established "B" with "B" and transferred all rights and obligations to "B", and therefore, the defendant is not obligated to bear the obligation to the defendant. However, since the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional circumstances, such as the interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment in favor of the new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit, so it is impossible for the court in the subsequent suit to re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). In this regard, the defendant's argument is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.