A. Ex officio, we examine the legality of the claim portion 2 and 3 of this case.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1 and 2, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. received each of the judgment in favor of each of the instant 2 claims under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2011Gaso137685 on July 14, 2011, and the Seoul Central District Court No. 2011Gaso137685 on May 4, 2011 on the instant 3 claims.

C. A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription has the interest in a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006) only in cases where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, and a successor to the party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.

However, the period of extinctive prescription remains for not less than five years as of the date of closing argument of the instant case.

Therefore, the claim concerning the claim 2 and 3 of the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

2. Determination as to the claim 1 of this case among the lawsuit of this case

A. According to the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the facts are the same as the statement on the cause of the claim in the separate sheet. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from January 28, 2016 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of KRW 2,174,30 as of January 27, 2016 and the balance of principal amount of KRW 1,497,254 as of January 28, 2016.

B. Defendant’s defense 1) asserts that this case’s claim 1 had expired by prescription. 2) According to each of Gap’s evidence 2-2 and Gap’s evidence 7, Defendant’s defense on March 2011.