2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

A. 1) Defendant YY completed the Seoul Central District Court No. 25970 on June 26, 2004 with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment List No. 1], Defendant YP completed on June 26, 2004; 2) Defendant YP completed on June 26, 2004 as Seoul Central District Court No. 25971 on the real estate listed in the above Schedule No. 2; 3) Defendant YG completed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of each neighboring mortgage completed on June 26, 2004 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 25972 on the real estate listed in the above Schedule No. 3. 3.

B. On the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the place of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on paragraph (2) of the above A, the co-defendant of the first instance trial, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant Republic of Korea expressed its intention of each acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage on the place of the registration

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the following provisions are added to the fourth and sixth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the fourth and sixth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the fourth and sixth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, " argument and decision on the third and third merits", and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main text of

2. The addition;

“2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Summary of Defendant Lee Y, KimP, and KimG’s assertion

The lawsuit of this case filed by the Plaintiff against the said Defendants (third obligor) on behalf of the most BB (the obligee’s third obligor) was extinguished by the statute of limitations defense by the said Defendants. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful due to the absence of the preserved claim against the obligee (the obligee’s obligor) in the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit.

B. Determination

Even if the extinctive prescription of a surety obligation is interrupted, it does not cease to exist as to the principal obligation, and if the principal obligation is extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the surety obligation also ceases to exist as a matter of course according to the nature of the principal obligation, notwithstanding the interruption of prescription itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62476, May 14, 2002). However, in the obligee’s claim against a third party by exercising the obligee’s subrogation right, the third obligor cannot oppose the obligee’s defense against the obligee. If the extinctive prescription of a claim is completed, the third obligor cannot, in principle, oppose the obligor’s third party’s subrogation lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da31472, Dec. 8, 1998). In light of the above legal principles, even if the extinctive prescription of a claim for reimbursement against the obligee’s largestB (debtor), the said Defendants, a third party obligor, as the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit, cannot be invoked in this case.

Rather, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the largestB seeking reimbursement amount of KRW 449,742,599 with Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da18096, Jul. 29, 201 and damages for delay thereof, and rendered a favorable judgment from the above court on July 20, 201, and only it is recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive on Oct. 20, 2011, and a above defendants submitted a confirmation document (B26-1) to the effect that "the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement amount against the highestB was extinguished by prescription," but the above submission of the confirmation document does not affect the validity of the above final judgment. Therefore, the aforementioned defendants' prior defense is without merit."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.