2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Grounds for claims;

Since the defendant does not clearly dispute the grounds for the claim stated in the attached Form, it shall be deemed as confession. Accordingly, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is a joint and several surety, to pay the indemnity amount and damages for delay determined, jointly and severally with the principal debtor and the non-party 2, and 368,847,389 won as to the principal amount of indemnity amount and 18% per annum from December 30, 200 to October 18, 2002, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(b) Profits of lawsuits;

According to the evidence No. 1 and No. 1-1, the Cheongju District Court Decision 2001Gahap3037 decided Oct. 18, 2002, which rendered a favorable judgment of the plaintiff as to the above cause of claim No. 2001Gahap3037 decided Oct. 18, 2002, and confirmed on Nov. 9, 2002.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff made a demand for distribution in the Cheongju District Court 2003Ma34642, which is the debtor of the non-party 1 as the debtor of the principal debtor, in the case of an application for a compulsory auction of real estate as of April 13, 2007, and the distribution schedule was prepared as being distributed some of the above judgment amount on the date of distribution, and the distribution schedule became final and conclusive around that time.

In addition, the demand for distribution by a creditor who has an executory exemplification in the real estate auction procedure is equivalent to the seizure under Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, and has an effect of interrupting the extinctive prescription of a claim related to demand for distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25484, Feb. 26, 2002, etc.). Since the interruption of extinctive prescription against a principal debtor has an effect on the guarantor, the interruption of extinctive prescription against the principal debtor has an effect on the guarantor (Article 440 of the Civil Act). The extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the principal debtor was interrupted by the Plaintiff’s above demand for distribution, and thereafter, the extinctive prescription of the claim in this case against the principal debtor has run newly for ten years from April 13, 2007, where

Therefore, on March 30, 2017, when the ten-year period from the above exists, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit again on March 30, 2017, is recognized as a benefit of lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the interruption of prescription against the principal obligor does not extend to the guaranteed obligor, since the judgment becomes final and conclusive by filing a claim for indemnity against the principal obligor and the guaranteed obligor, the principal obligation and the guaranteed obligation are converted respectively into separate obligations, and legal relationship becomes final and conclusive.

However, the court's judgment of performance does not have a formative effect that leads to the occurrence, change, or extinction of rights and obligations, but has the effect of confirming the relationship between rights and obligations existing and ordering the performance thereof, and the defendant's assertion that the relationship between the principal obligation and the guaranteed obligation ceases to exist due to the confirmation of the above judgment cannot

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is justified.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-il