A. On June 9, 1998, the Plaintiff, under Defendant C’s joint and several sureties, lent KRW 40 million to Defendant B at an annual interest rate of 36% and due date of payment on July 31, 1998.

B. On April 10, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for a loan claim against Jeonju District Court 2008Kadan13861, and was sentenced to a judgment in favor of all the Defendants on July 29, 2008, which ordered payment of 40 million won and 30% per annum from June 10, 1998 to the date of complete payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 25, 2008.

(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.

On April 3, 2009, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order concerning Defendant B’s deposit, etc. based on the authentic copy of the final judgment of this case, which was executed by Jeonju District Court 2009TT2632. On April 8, 2009, the above collection order was served on D Co., Ltd., a garnishee on April 8, 2009. On November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 2,769,572 in the distribution procedure of the deposit.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As long as the Plaintiff received part of the claim under the final and conclusive judgment of this case on November 20, 2009 and suspended the extinctive prescription, and the instant lawsuit was instituted on November 13, 2019 where the ten-year extinctive prescription period expired, the Defendants’ defenses of extinctive prescription are without merit.

The above 2,769,572 won was appropriated for the debt of June 10, 1998 from June 10 to September 9, 1998 for the principal of the loan amounting to 40,000,000 won [=3,00,000 won x 0.3 x 3/12), but it shall be governed by the Plaintiff’s request];

According to the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 40 million won and damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum from September 10, 1998 to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants seeking performance of the obligation for the interruption of extinctive prescription is justified, and all of them are accepted.