2. The defendant shall pay KRW 6,358,364 to the plaintiff.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On February 26, 2003, the Defendant entered into a small loan guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff, who is a non-party company, with the purchase price of KRW 5,390,000,00, for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the household loans from the Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”).

At this time, B guaranteed the defendant's debt in the above insurance contract.

B. After that, upon the occurrence of an insured event against against the Defendant’s failure to repay loans to the non-party company, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,314,752 to the non-party company on January 26, 2004 at the request of the non-party company.

C. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and Eul with the Gwangju District Court 2004Gapo23864, which stated that "the above court shall jointly and severally pay to the defendant and Eul 5,314,752 won and 19% interest per annum from January 27, 2004 to the day of full payment" and that "the above court shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 5,314,752 won and 59% interest per annum from January 27, 2004 to the day of full payment," and that the decision shall be made to the defendant on October 1, 2004 to the defendant.

7. 30. A final and conclusive date:

The Plaintiff received partial repayment from Defendant and B from February 6, 2015, from Defendant and the principal were fully repaid and extinguished as the principal was fully repaid, and the damages for delay remains 6,358,364.

E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to extend the statute of limitations against the Defendant.

【Recognition of Facts】 The entries of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining damages for delay to the plaintiff 6,358,364 won.

The first instance court determined that there was no benefit in the protection of rights to the instant lawsuit, since the statute of limitations has yet to be sufficient, on the ground that the Plaintiff had been paid several times from the Defendant until February 6, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff had been paid debt from the Defendant, and thus the statute of limitations has been interrupted. However, according to the statement in the evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff is the principal obligor.