1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,049,031 and KRW 52,55,341 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 52,55,341 per annum from January 22, 200 to July 1, 2004.

1. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the defendant on May 27, 2005 by filing a judgment in favor of the plaintiff that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 53,049,031 won and 52,55,341 won from January 22, 2000 to July 1, 2004; 20% per annum 15% per annum from the next day to March 30, 2005; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment."

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 53,049,031 won and 52,55,341 won among them to the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the prescription period of the above claim, 20% per annum from January 22, 2000 to July 1, 2004, 15% per annum from the next day to March 30, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unfair because the Defendant did not receive any loan from the bank. However, in the event a new suit is filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendant, the judgment in the previous suit shall not conflict with the judgment in favor of the previous suit, and the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). The Defendant’s argument

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.