1. Of the instant lawsuit, the lawsuit against the Defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd. is comprised of KRW 685,739,421 and that of the Plaintiff.

1. Whether the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is legitimate or not, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case identical to the above prior suit for the extension of extinctive prescription of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant B, we examine ex officio whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, in case where the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit again against the other party to the previous lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful in principle as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. Provided, That where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on

(2) On July 6, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant B under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Kadan6979, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on July 6, 2004. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 10, 2004. Defendant B received a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan on July 6, 201 from the above court under the Incheon District Court Decision 201Mo37, which included the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of rehabilitation creditors of the approved rehabilitation plan. There is no dispute between the parties.

However, the interruption of prescription is effective in the event of participation in the rehabilitation procedure such as submission of a list of rehabilitation creditors in the rehabilitation procedure (Article 32 subparag. 3 and Article 589(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). According to the above acknowledged facts, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against Defendant B was interrupted by the Plaintiff participating in the rehabilitation procedure of Defendant B with the above bonds, and it is apparent from the fact that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has not elapsed. Thus, the instant lawsuit filed for the interruption of prescription cannot be deemed as benefit of lawsuit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant A.