2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 6,000,000 as well as to the plaintiff from November 10, 1993 to September 2002.

A. The bankruptcy trustee of the National Credit Cooperative of the bankrupt filed a lawsuit against the defendant who is the principal debtor B, the defendant who is the joint and several sureties and the defendant who is the joint and several sureties as the Daegu District Court 201Kadan78086, and the above court

6. The defendant jointly and severally rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff that "the defendant shall pay 30 million won to the plaintiff (trustee in bankruptcy) and 17.5% per annum from November 10, 1993 to September 23, 2002, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On August 7, 2003, the bankruptcy trustee of the National Credit Cooperative of the bankrupt transferred a claim based on the above judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer.

C. On November 30, 2010, B, the primary debtor of the instant claim, filed an application for credit recovery support with the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission, and repaid KRW 233,619 on March 25, 201 upon receipt of the decision on credit recovery. However, the decision on credit recovery was revoked due to the failure to repay the installment amount of the instant claim thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of prescription against the said final judgment. As such, the instant claim was ten years of extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act with respect to the claim established by the judgment. The fact that: (a) on November 30, 2010, prior to the lapse of ten (10) years, B, the primary debtor of the instant claim, filed an application for credit recovery support with the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission on the instant claim; and (b) partially repaid the debt on March 25, 201.

Therefore, it is recognized that B approved the debt of this case, and the interruption of prescription against the debtor is effective against the guarantor (Article 440 of the Civil Code), therefore.