1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 320,226,583 and KRW 34,264,123 among them, Defendant B shall be from September 30, 1998; and 23,05.

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the annexed sheet of claim

(However, the creditor shall be deemed the defendant in the case of the plaintiff).

(a) Defendant B, C, and D: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

B. Defendant E Co., Ltd. (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). In light of the purport of exceptionally allowing a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim pursuant to a final and conclusive judgment despite the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment, it is against the res judicata effect to make a substantive judgment that changes the main text of a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Da16040) against the Plaintiff’s Defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). Therefore, the interest rate pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21