2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum under the agreement, as sought by the Plaintiff, from December 18, 2019, the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order from December 18, 2019 to January 18, 2020, as to the total amount of the principal and interest of the acquisition amount of KRW 214,277,964, and the total amount of the principal and interest of the acquisition amount of KRW 75,827,924, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has expired ten years after the claim for indemnity against the defendant of the C management agency (D management agency), and accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the above C management agency has expired.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 1, the creditor C’s organization (D management organization) may recognize the fact that the payment order was finalized around July 8, 2010 by stating that “the defendant shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 121,080,686 and the amount of KRW 75,827,924 as to the amount of KRW 121,080,686 and the amount of KRW 75,827,924 from May 10, 2010 to the delivery date of the payment order, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.”

Therefore, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity was extended to 10 years pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act, and on December 20, 2019, before the expiration of 10 years thereafter, the Plaintiff applied for an order of payment based on the claim for indemnity. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff .