1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the Defendant C with respect thereto from April 10, 2010, and Defendant B from April 2010.

1. On May 9, 2007, the Plaintiff leased the first floor bath of the building underground from Defendant B on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 35,000,000 and the period of 12 months. On the same day, E and Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation under the above lease agreement with Defendant B.

After that, the above lease contract was extended for a period of time and renewed, and terminated by the auction of the above building around August 2009, and the plaintiff delivered the above bath building to the successful bidder of the above building.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants claiming the return of the lease deposit.

(U) On October 29, 2010, the above court rendered a ruling that “The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 10, 2010 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment on the previous suit of this case”), and around that time, the above judgment became final and conclusive.

On February 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of prescription for a claim based on the judgment rendered in the instant prior suit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 35,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from April 10, 2010 to the date of full payment, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 35,000,000 won, and from August 27, 2010 to the date of full payment.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that Defendant B concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the above bath building and received a deposit for lease from the Plaintiff.

If a subsequent suit is filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription, the judgment in the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall be able to assert the established right.