Therefore, Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable with Defendant Company to pay 10 million won, Defendant D, and E, within the limit of 1.74 million won, 10 million won per annum from November 28, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. Since Defendant Company and Defendant D asserted that the above loans have expired by prescription, according to the health class and evidence No. 1-1 of evidence No. 1, Defendant Company and Defendant D’s each of the above loans can be acknowledged that Defendant Company loaned 65 million won to Defendant Company on June 11, 2008 by setting the expiration date of the credit as the date of June 11, 2009, and that the above obligations were commercial bonds, and thus, the statute of limitations expired on June 12, 2014 after five years elapsed.

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has been interrupted by applying for a voluntary auction of G real estate G in the Changwon District Court.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 5, the fact that the Korea Asset Management Corporation, which received the claim from F, applied for an auction of real estate rent to the Changwon District Court G for the payment of KRW 849,035,646 on December 22, 2010 can be acknowledged. As such, the above loan obligations are re-extinctive prescription from December 22, 2010.

The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations has expired again after the lapse of five years from December 22, 2010. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant D applied for approval for debt settlement with respect to the above loan obligation on May 13, 201, and that Defendant D approved the debt by repaying the above loan obligation between August 26, 201 and October 29, 2014.

First, on November 21, 2018, the statement of Gap evidence No. 8 alone is that the defendant D “a letter of debt acceptance, a request for conciliation, and a letter of undertaking.”