1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 7, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for a promissory note payment claim, and the lawsuit documents, such as a duplicate of the complaint of the above lawsuit, were served on the Defendants by means of service by public notice, and the first instance judgment on November 7, 2007 (the Incheon District Court Decision 2007Gaso162026, hereinafter “prior judgment”) was sentenced.

B. The purport of the preceding judgment is that “the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,458,080 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 31, 2007 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint.”

The original judgment was served by public notice to the Defendants, and the preceding judgment became final and conclusive on November 24, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1-2, each entry of Eul evidence 1-2, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A new lawsuit based on the same subject matter as a final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit should not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit, even if there are special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription of the obligation to pay the amount of bills, and thus, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the established requirements are satisfied. Therefore, in order for the Defendant to dispute the legal relationship of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit, the res judicata should be extinguished by filing a lawful appeal regarding the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. This does not change on the ground that the service of a duplicate of the previous suit and the original copy of the judgment, etc.,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). The foregoing recognized facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court are comprehensively taken into account, and the following circumstances, namely, a prior judgment.