1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 64,601,446 and the amount of KRW 18,712,272 from June 15, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff acquired each claim against the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "each claim of this case") under the same circumstance as the statement in the grounds for the claim of this case, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim of transfer amount (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Da35400, hereinafter referred to as "the previous lawsuit of this case") and the above court concluded the pleadings on August 22, 2006 and rendered a closure of the pleadings on September 5, 2006, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,93,681 won and 18,712,272 won among them, with 17% interest per annum from April 1, 2005 to the day of complete payment," and it is recognized that the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive at that time.

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from June 15, 2016 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 64,601,446 of the balance of the principal and interest of the Plaintiff and KRW 18,712,272 of the balance of the principal.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not bear the joint and several liability as alleged by the plaintiff.

B. Since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot bring a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, a new suit shall be allowed exceptionally. In such a case, the judgment of a new suit shall not conflict with the contents of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in the subsequent suit shall not re-examine whether all the requirements to claim the established right have

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). Accordingly, each of the claims of this case, the existence of which was confirmed by the judgment of the previous suit of this case, had already existed at the time of conclusion of the pleadings of the previous suit of this case (where the Defendant’s assertion is based on the Defendant’s assertion).