2. The defendant is the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

(However, the part of the first instance court's joint defendant corporation B, which became separate and final, 2.2. Cut-un part of the first instance court's decision 6. 3. 3. as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

D. As seen earlier prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the prior payment order against the Defendant, a joint and several surety, was finalized on August 22, 2008. Since it is apparent in the record that the application for the instant payment order was filed on November 6, 2018, the Defendant’s guaranteed liability had already expired prior to the Plaintiff’s application for the instant payment order.

I would like to say.

However, in full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation applied for a compulsory auction on land B owned by the Gwangju District Court YYF for a compulsory auction on June 12, 2009, and found that the registration of the compulsory auction decision was completed on the above auction case; as a result of appraisal of real estate in the above auction case, the minimum sale price does not remain if the creditor reimburses the creditor's senior claims; however, the auction court notified the creditor's purchase to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation; however, on December 2, 2009, the decision to commence auction was revoked on the ground that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation did not file an application under Article 102 (1) of the Civil Execution Act but did not file an application under Article 102 (2) of the Civil Execution Act. Thus, the above claim of this case was suspended by the statute of limitations, and where the auction procedure was revoked pursuant to Article 102 (2) of the Civil Execution Act, the interruption of prescription due to seizure does not expire (see, e. 27.284, 2016).