1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted by the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "No. 8 B" in Section 6 of Section 4 of the first instance court's decision shall be "No. 2, 3, and 8"; "No. 13, 2003" in Section 4 below shall be "No. 13, 2003"; "Seoul East District Court" in Section 1 shall be "Seoul East District Court" in Section 5 below shall be deemed "Seoul Eastern District Court"; and the plaintiff shall make an additional determination as to this case's argument, and it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff and the Deceased jointly lent KRW 300 million to the Cooperative to make an indivisible creditor or joint obligee, and that the amount of settlement among indivisible creditors or joint obligees shall be extinguished by the extinctive prescription from the time of joint repayment. Thus, the deceased’s claim is extinguished by the extinctive prescription from the time of collection of the claim under the agreement on February 10, 2004.

On the other hand, Article 408 of the Civil Act provides that, if there are several creditors, each creditor shall have the right in equal ratio unless there is a special declaration of intention, and therefore, in principle, the claim relationship between multiple parties is a divided claim relationship, and it becomes an indivisible claim relationship only when it is particularly indivisible upon the nature of the claim or upon the agreement between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu2159, Apr. 23, 1985; 90Da13628, Oct. 27, 1992). In light of the investment developments and the contents of the agreement acknowledged earlier, the above claim of the plaintiff and the deceased shall be deemed an indivisible claim by its nature.