A. On March 18, 2008, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Korea Technology Finance Corporation changed its trade name to the subsequent Korea Technology Finance Corporation) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and B, and received the judgment of March 18, 2008 that “The Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff 642,41,806 won and 640,431,506 won per annum from March 24, 2004 to June 23, 2004; 16% per annum from the next day to February 1, 2008; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

(Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan27446). The above judgment was finalized on April 11, 2008.

B. On September 27, 2012, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation transferred the claim for reimbursement to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim on November 1, 2012 by content-certified mail.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the money set forth in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff within the scope of the claim for indemnity finalized.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has expired as long as 10 years have elapsed since the date of the first credit guarantee agreement.

However, even if a claim established by a judgment falls under the short-term extinctive prescription, the extinctive prescription is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and on February 1, 2018, before the lapse of 10 years from April 11, 2008, when the judgment became final and conclusive, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order is apparent in the record. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription is groundless.

In addition, the defendant's assertion to the effect that the employee of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund made a false statement in the name of his wife at the time of the initial credit guarantee to the effect that the debt would be settled in the event of his business operator's payment. However, the above assertion is contrary to res judicata in the previous judgment which became final and conclusive, and therefore, it cannot

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.