The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant, which divided the electrical construction business sector A from A to the Defendant, was jointly and severally liable with A, for reimbursement of liability for indemnity against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant, based on a credit guarantee agreement with A, was liable for the Plaintiff’s subrogation for a loan to a national bank of A, a corporation, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s subrogation for a loan to the national bank of A based on a credit guarantee agreement with A, was omitted from individual peremptory procedure under Articles 530-9(4) and 527-5(

(Article 590-9(1) of the Commercial Act). Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the repayment loan, the creditor protection procedure and the “known creditor” under Articles 530-9(4) and 527-5(1) of the Commercial Act, or by violating the Supreme Court precedents.

2. The damages for delay shall be considered ex officio.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation before a fact-finding ruling declaring that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation is rendered, Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable scope.” Article 3(2) of the same Act provides that “The application of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.

"Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist whether he/she has an obligation or not" under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Accounts.