1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and as a result, from November 7, 1997 to May 31, 2003.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff filed a payment order against the defendants for the return of KRW 100 million on December 3, 1997, and "the defendant jointly and severally pays to the plaintiff 100 million won and 25% interest per annum from November 7, 1997 to the date of full payment." The payment order (97 tea 5780) was finalized as it is. (2) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the return of KRW 100 million amount for the interruption of extinctive prescription and filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the return of KRW 100 million amount from the Changwon District Court on June 27, 2008, "the defendant jointly and severally received KRW 10 million from November 7, 1997 to May 31, 2003, and from June 1, 2003 to 208, 2003 to 70% interest per annum 50% interest per annum 206% interest per annum 270% interest per annum 207."

3) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants again for the interruption of extinctive prescription. [The grounds for recognition Gap were stated in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won and 25% per annum from November 7, 1997 to May 31, 2003, 2003, 20% per annum from June 1, 2003 to August 17, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. 2) The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's right to lease on a deposit basis has expired since they were revoked resident registration until the beginning of 2009 and did not receive any mail from the plaintiff. However, the above judgment of 2007Ga52679 was followed by service by service by public notice, but the court failed to meet the requirements of service by public notice by public notice by public notice.