2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (No. 1, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the Defendant’s husband D as follows:

The loan certificate of this case includes the contents that the defendant is a joint and several surety.

D E F CG A

B. On August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an order to pay D money on the instant loan certificate and filed an application with D on August 2, 201.

8. The debtor was ordered to pay to the creditor 50,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment (No. 20% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment) and the above decision was finalized on August 25, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). 【The grounds for recognition” / Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of the claimed amount (the remaining KRW 43.3 million out of the total KRW 50 million on the loan certificate of this case, and the delay damages) on the ground that the loan certificate of this case was written as a joint and several surety, the Defendant asserted that the claim of the Plaintiff had already been extinguished after the lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations.

In this case, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim shall run from December 31, 1999, even if based on the loan certificate of this case.

It is obvious that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case had already been extinguished by prescription prior to the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

C. As the instant payment order against D, a principal debtor, became final and conclusive on August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff only extended the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant to August 24, 2021, ten years after the above date, and ② the Defendant’s arbitrary discretion on February 25, 2010 and around June 14, 2017.