A. Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s friendly birth, and Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s wife as Defendant B.

B. Upon Defendant B’s request on December 10, 2004, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 141,059,954 to the foreign exchange bank of D, the representative director of which was the representative director.

C. On January 20, 2005, Defendant B agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million up to May 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant reimbursement agreement”), and Defendant C guaranteed this.

(hereinafter “this case’s guarantee agreement”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, pursuant to the instant repayment agreement and guarantee agreement, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 70 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 21, 2017 to the date of full payment following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the extinguishment of the obligation due to the extinguishment of the principal obligation, the instant repayment agreement is deemed to be a joint and several guarantee agreement for Defendant B’s joint and several liability to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against D, which is the principal obligor, was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription on December 1, 2009, when five years have elapsed since the date following the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity, as the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was a commercial bond, and the period from December 11, 2004 to December 10, 2009, which is the date following the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity, the Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff under the instant repayment agreement was extinguished for the same reason, and the obligation of Defendant C, which guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation under the instant guarantee agreement, was also deemed to have been extinguished for the same reason. Therefore, the instant repayment agreement is deemed to be a joint

(b) an expression of intent.