1.For the plaintiff: (a)

Defendant A and B jointly and severally shall be 195,042,831 won and its 48,346.

1. Claim against the defendant 1 and 2;

(a) Claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a final and conclusive payment claim in the claim to be indicated Incheon District Court 2001Gau9195

(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (in cases of confessions made by the absence of the defendant);

2. Claims against the defendant 3 through 10;

A. The judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on April 30, 2004 in the Incheon District Court Decision 2001Gahap9195, which the Plaintiff filed against Defendant 3 through 10, and became final and conclusive on June 4, 2004. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 13, 2014 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the said final and conclusive payment claim is either a dispute between the parties or is significant in this court.

B. According to the above facts, Defendant 3 through 10 is obligated to pay each of the money listed in paragraph 1(b) to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the Dong K, barring any special circumstance.

C. After the conclusion of the above judgment, Defendant 3 or 10 provided the Plaintiff with the payment in kind in 1 point of hand-to-day, 300,000 won in cash, all of the property inherited from the deceased K, but the Plaintiff refused to receive it, and the Plaintiff notified several times thereafter, but the Plaintiff did not comply with it, thus, Defendant 3 or 10 asserts that the instant lawsuit is against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of invalidation.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above Defendants provided the Plaintiff with effective repayment in line with the purport of the above final judgment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Even if the above Defendants’ inherited property is the same as the above Defendants asserted, if the above Defendants’ inherited property falls short of the repayment of the above final judgment amount, the Plaintiff can execute it only within the extent of inherited property, and thus, the said Defendants are not specially favorable to the above Defendants. Thus, the statute of limitations was interrupted.