A. Defendant A and B jointly and severally share 60,038,063 won and 46,868,080 won among them. From August 5, 2002

A. On April 17, 2007, the Plaintiff (former International Mutual Savings Bank) borrowed KRW 69,00,000 from the Plaintiff on or around June 17, 2001, the Plaintiff (former International Mutual Savings Bank) jointly and severally guaranteed only KRW 69,00,00 from the Plaintiff; Defendant B was liable for the above loan; Defendant C was liable for the above loan; and Defendant C was jointly and severally guaranteed only KRW 69,00,000 from the loan; and on August 4, 2002, the amount of loan the Plaintiff was not repaid by the Defendant A as of August 4, 2002 was the total amount of KRW 46,86,080, interest KRW 13,169,038,063, the total amount of loan the Plaintiff was KRW 60,038,063; the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendants on August 16, 2007.

B. On August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim for loans, etc. in accordance with the said final judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial facts in this Court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as above, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money indicated in the text of the previous final and conclusive judgment.

B. As to the defendant C's assertion, it is unreasonable for the defendant C to claim the performance of the guaranteed obligation that the plaintiff did not take any timely measures to recover the claim against the principal debtor who had the ability to pay the debt, but it cannot be said that the creditor has the obligation to claim the performance of the guaranteed obligation first against the principal debtor in exercising the guarantor's claim. In addition, as for the joint and several liability, the creditor does not have the right of peremptory and search against the principal debtor, and even if the joint and several liability is requested to the joint and several surety without the peremptory notice against the principal debtor, the guarantor cannot set up against the creditor, so the above argument by

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.