A. Defendant F shall pay 215,443,778 won and 55,251,240 won among them from March 28, 2019 to the date of full payment.

A. G entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on September 10, 1997, and borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from HF from HF, and Defendant F jointly and severally guaranteed G’s indemnity liability based on the credit guarantee agreement.

B. On August 31, 1999, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 55,251,240 to the H association, as G was unable to repay its loans.

C. G died on June 23, 2016, and Defendant C, D, and E, who is the denied Defendant B and their children, approved the inheritance-limited partnership.

The principal and interest on a claim for reimbursement based on the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement is KRW 215,443,778 in total as of March 28, 2019 (i.e., principal KRW 55,251,240 in delay damages of KRW 159,859,243 in substitute payments of KRW 89,460 in substitute payments of KRW 89,835 in total), and the rate of delay interest determined by the Plaintiff is 12% per annum.

【Defendant B, C, D, and E: Defendant F: Each entry in the evidence of No. 1 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B, C, D, and E are co-suretiess of G within the scope of property inherited from G, and Defendant F is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest on indemnity based on the credit guarantee agreement as joint and several suretys.

B. Defendant B, C, D, and E’s claim for reimbursement against the extinctive prescription of Defendant B, C, D, and E is proved to have expired.

However, according to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiff received a payment order (the Changwon District Court 2009 tea1980) on April 24, 2009 and the payment order was finalized against G and defendant F on April 24, 2009 before 10 years elapse from the date of subrogated, and the fact that the plaintiff again filed a payment order (the same court 2019 tea498) on March 29, 2019 before the expiration of 10 years from the date of subrogated, and the plaintiff filed a payment order against G and defendant F for the payment order (the same court 2019 tea498) and implemented as the lawsuit in this case is obvious in the record, and it is reasonable to view

Accordingly, Defendant B, C, D, and E.