1. The defendant is jointly and severally with the non-party B as to KRW 99,308,182 and KRW 28,040,000 among them, from February 21, 2016.

1. The facts in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 7 asserted by the plaintiff as the cause of the claim in this case can be acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statement No. 1 and No. 7.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who acquired the first creditor financial institution’s claim, the total amount of KRW 99,308,182, and the principal amount of KRW 28,040,00,000 from February 21, 2016 to the date of full payment, 17% per annum under the agreement.

2. The defendant's assertion is not known who is the principal debtor B, and the part of the defendant's personal information, such as the defendant's personal information stated in the loan agreement of this case, is not the defendant's body, and the seal affixed is not the seal of the defendant, so the plaintiff's claim

In light of the above evidence, the court which examines a new suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription can not re-examine whether the plaintiff's final judgment has res judicata effect and satisfies all the requirements to assert the right to claim the established claim. The court should not re-examine whether the plaintiff's final judgment in favor of the defendant et al. has res judicata effect.

(2) If the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant exists in the judgment prior to the previous suit, as long as it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant exists in the judgment prior to the previous suit, it cannot be reviewed again as to the above grounds alleged by the Defendant in the lawsuit of this case brought for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.