2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,939,897 won and 14,284,932 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the service of the payment order of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Card”) lent to the Nonparty the amount of KRW 31,540,000 on September 27, 2003, and KRW 28,650,000 on September 13, 2004, respectively, and the Defendant, who is the Nonparty’s holder, jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above obligations against Samsung Card by the Nonparty.

B. Samsung Card Co., Ltd. transferred, on September 29, 2009, the aforementioned loan claims against the Nonparty on April 26, 201, to the ice Loan Co., Ltd., to the immediately invested securities company on April 26, 2011, to the immediately invested securities company on May 2, 2011, to the Eice Loan Asset Management Co., Ltd., and the Eice Loan Asset Management Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2015.

C. On January 25, 2008, the Nonparty filed an application for individual rehabilitation (the Suwon District Court Decision 2008Dag2891) on March 17, 2008, and decided to authorize the repayment plan on July 15, 2008 including the Plaintiff’s claim, and the said individual rehabilitation plan was discontinued on May 30, 2012. The Nonparty filed an appeal against the discontinuation decision on June 12, 2012, and was revoked on June 21, 2012, and the said individual rehabilitation procedure was in progress until the date of closing the argument of the instant case.

D. As of September 20, 2018, the amount of claims against the Nonparty and the Defendant is KRW 14,284,932, interest36,654,965, totaling KRW 50,939,897.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 18, 2018 to the date of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff who acquired the loan claim against the non-party of Samsung Card as a joint guarantor of the non-party, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 18, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

(1) Defendant’s defense

On July 15, 2008, the non-party, who filed an application for individual rehabilitation, filed a decision to authorize the repayment plan, and thus, on July 15, 2013, the period of extinctive prescription against the defendant, who is the guarantor, has expired.

(2) Determination

Where an individual rehabilitation procedure participates in such individual rehabilitation procedure as submitting a list of individual rehabilitation creditors in the individual rehabilitation procedure, the interruption of prescription is effective (Article 32 subparag. 3 and Article 589(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). The interruption of prescription by submitting a list of individual rehabilitation creditors is maintained as is while the individual rehabilitation procedure is in progress (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013). The interruption of prescription against the principal debtor shall be effective against the guarantor (Article 440 of the Civil Act).

According to the above facts, on January 25, 2008, before five years of the extinctive prescription period of the non-party, the non-party who filed an application for individual rehabilitation, submitted a list of creditors with the plaintiff as creditor, and received a decision to authorize the repayment plan on July 15, 2008, and the procedure is in progress by the date of the closing of argument in the instant case. Thus, the non-party's debt of the non-party debtor was suspended on January 25, 2008, and the non-party's individual rehabilitation procedure is still in progress, and as long as the non-party's individual rehabilitation procedure is not discontinued and is still in progress, the interruption of prescription period is still in force as it is, and the interruption of prescription against the non-party

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as

Judges Tae Tae (Presiding Judge)