1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 50,000,000 won and the period from August 31, 2008 to December 13, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to Defendant B on May 30, 2008 and on May 10, 2008.

B. The Plaintiff urged Defendant B to pay the above borrowed amount, and Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, agreed on June 12, 2008 to pay the above borrowed amount to the Plaintiff by August 30, 2008, jointly and severally with Defendant B.

C. The plaintiff paid the defendants' repayment until August 30, 2008, which is the date of the above payment. However, the defendants did not pay the above loan so far.

[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, as joint and several obligors, have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million borrowed principal and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 31, 2008, which is the day following the date on which the contract is due, until December 13, 2018, which is reasonable for the Defendants to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to perform.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s above loan claim has expired after the ten-year extinctive prescription period. 2) The extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 50 million against the Defendants is ten years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act. The fact that the said claim was due on August 30, 2008 is identical to that of the above recognized facts. The instant lawsuit is clearly recorded in the record that it was filed on May 2, 2018, the ten-year period has expired. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the said claim cannot be deemed to have expired.

Therefore, the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription cannot be recognized.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants can be accepted within the scope of each of the above recognitions.