1. The plaintiff and the defendants have become final and conclusive in Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap28630 case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for damages amounting to KRW 288,395,640 for damages, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gahap28630, and damages for delay thereof. The Defendant jointly and severally paid KRW 230,716,000 to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2008 in the course of the said lawsuit. In the event that the Defendants delayed the payment of the above amount, the Defendants jointly and severally rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the aforementioned payment shall be made by adding an annual amount of 20% to the Plaintiff from January 1, 2009 to the date of full payment,” and the said ruling of recommending reconciliation was finalized on December 31, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”). B.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 29, 2018, immediately before ten years elapsed since the decision to recommend reconciliation in the instant case became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription as to the cause of a claim, “new form of litigation seeking confirmation” is permissible only to the effect that there is a “judicial claim” in addition to a performance suit, which is a subsequent suit for the interruption of prescription for a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit, and an obligee may select and file a suit that is more suitable for one’s own situation and needs among the two types of lawsuits.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). According to the above facts of recognition, there is a benefit to seek confirmation as to the existence of a judicial claim for the interruption of the statute of limitations on the claim for damages against the Defendant based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case that the Plaintiff became final and conclusive.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, at the time when the Defendants established a multi-level company and operated the business, the Plaintiff is a superior seller at the director general level, rather than the amount deposited by the Plaintiff in the company.