(a)as shown in the grounds for the change in the attachment of the claim;

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and purport of whole pleadings

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the claim for loans No. 8 has expired after the completion of prescription.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 5, it can be acknowledged that Eul, the primary debtor, has repaid part of the debt amount of this case by June 12, 2012, and the interruption of prescription against the primary debtor is effective against the guarantor. Since the payment order of this case was applied on June 27, 2016, the previous five years after the lapse of the above five years, the argument for the defense of extinctive prescription cannot be accepted.

2. According to the conclusion, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the money stated in paragraph (1) to the plaintiff with the primary debtor B.