A. Under the credit guarantee agreement, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) and the Defendant, a joint guarantor, with the Seoul Central District Court 2008da36791, which sought reimbursement from the above court on January 22, 2009. The judgment below was finalized on May 30, 2006 through December 2, 2008, that the Defendant jointly and severally paid to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund the amount of KRW 138,545,788 and the amount of KRW 138,03,218 as to KRW 15% per annum from May 30, 2006 to December 2, 2008 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 18, 209.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the foregoing judgment claim (hereinafter “the instant claim”) to the Plaintiff, and sent a notice of assignment by content-certified mail to B and the Defendant on October 30, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the money as stated in paragraph (1) of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case.

B. The defendant's defense of the statute of limitations expired after the lapse of 10 years from January 22, 2009 in which the judgment on the transfer of the claim of this case was rendered.

(1) The extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment shall begin to run anew from the time when the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

It is obvious that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on January 23, 2019, before the lapse of 10 years from March 18, 2009, which became final and conclusive by the judgment of the previous reimbursement claim against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2008Da367991) (Article 165(1) and Article 178(2) of the Civil Act) and the period of extinctive prescription was re-exploed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided to accept it.