2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff

A. Defendant 1 Co., Ltd shall pay 757,781,556 won and 417,696,49 won and 20% interest per annum from July 31, 2008 to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant 2 is jointly and severally with Defendant 1 Company;

(1) Within the limit of KRW 459,71,90, 426,492,791 out of the money set forth in paragraph (a) above and 235,086,938 out of them shall be paid with 20% interest per annum from July 31, 2008 to the day of full payment;

(2) Of the money stated in the above paragraph (a) above, 310,920,00 won and 182,609,561 won among them shall be paid with 20% interest per annum from July 31, 2008 to the date of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the claim against Defendant 2 at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception that “A” of Section 5 of the first instance judgment is “182,609,561 won” and “B” of Section 5 of the fifth of the first instance judgment is “182,609,561 won of the principal.” Thus, this Court shall apply the main text of

2. The defendants' defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendants asserted that Defendant 2’s joint and several liability was extinguished by extinctive prescription due to the Defendant Company’s loan obligations under the first and second credit transaction agreements, the primary debtor, and accordingly, Defendant 2’s joint and several liability became extinct.

B. As acknowledged earlier, each of the above loans against the defendant company constitutes commercial claims, and its maturity date falls under the first credit transaction agreement of the non-party 1 bank (the date of the final payment on the letter of credit by the non-party 1 bank's credit transaction agreement) and December 5, 2002 (the date of payment on the letter of credit by the non-party 1 bank's second credit transaction agreement). Since the facts raised on April 24, 2008 after five years from the above maturity date are apparent in the record, each of the above loans obligations of the defendant company were extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period for the commercial claims, and all of the joint and several surety obligations of the defendant 2 were extinguished according to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation, the defendants' defense is justified.

3. The plaintiff's second defense;

A. On February 13, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted until October 6, 2003 since the Plaintiff filed an application for auction on real estate under Seoul Northern District Court No. 2003 Mata2956 on the part of Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul, ○○dong (hereinafter omitted) and (hereinafter referred to as “○○ apartment (hereinafter omitted) (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) owned by Defendant 2, a joint and several surety on February 13, 2003.

B. The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through No. 14.

(1) On June 28, 2001, Defendant 2 entered into a mortgage contract between the non-party 1 bank and the non-party 1 bank with respect to the instant real estate as a collateral obligation to the non-party 1 bank in accordance with the credit transaction agreement between the Defendant and the non-party 1 bank pursuant to the loan transaction agreement between the first and the second of this case. The debtor is the defendant company, and entered into a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of 20

(2) On January 20, 2003, Nonparty 1 bank sent to the Defendants a notice of proposed auction of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 45-2(2) of the former Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation (amended by Act No. 8140, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “the Act on the Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions”) to the Seoul Northern District Court to request auction of the instant real estate.

(3) Accordingly, the Seoul Northern District Court rendered a decision to commence auction on February 13, 2003, and then sent a decision to commence auction to the Defendants by applying Article 45-2(1) of the Act on the Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Seoul Northern District Court to “special cases of delivery,” thereby proceeding with the auction procedure, and decided to sell the instant real estate on September 3, 2003

C. Therefore, the issue of whether the extinctive prescription of the claim against the defendant company, which is the principal debtor, is interrupted due to the non-party 1 bank's application for voluntary auction on the real estate in this case owned by the defendant 2, which is the surety's surety and the joint surety, as well as the defendant 2's obligation, is examined. According to Article 176 of the Civil Code, if the seizure does not take effect against the person who received the benefit of prescription, it shall not be notified of the interruption of prescription. Thus, in order to deem that the seizure of the real estate owned by the surety's property is to be notified to the principal debtor, it shall be served to the principal debtor by means of delivery or service of the auction date notice so that the principal debtor can be known, and even if the principal debtor was not known by delivery by mail or service by public notice, it shall not be deemed that the seizure was notified to the principal debtor. As seen earlier in this case, the auction court delivered the above auction order to the defendants pursuant to Article 45-2 (1) of the Act on Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc.

In other words, according to Article 18 of the Credit Terms and Conditions applicable to credit transactions between the non-party 1 and the defendant company, when the address is changed, the defendant company shall promptly report to the non-party 1 bank in writing, and if the documents notified or sent to the defendant company have not arrived at the arrival of the documents, etc., the decision to commence auction against the defendant company shall be deemed to have arrived at the time of arrival. Thus, even if the notice was served by the method of delivery, the defendant company shall have the effect of service to the defendant company, and thus, the extinctive prescription against the defendant company, which is the principal debtor, shall be deemed to have been interrupted. However, even if the defendant decided to consider the service by the method of delivery between the creditor and the principal debtor as effective by the terms and conditions, the validity scope of the agreement between the parties cannot be deemed to have been included in the notification under Article 176 of the Civil Act (the auction court is not a party to the above agreement). This provision of the terms and conditions is contrary to Article 1

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed because they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so the court of first instance shall accept the defendants' appeal and revoke the judgment of the court of first instance, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Judge Round (Presiding Judge) and at least a copy of a loan