1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80,596,604 and KRW 44,615,828 among them.

1. In full view of the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid principal and interest and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as stated in the separate sheet (i.e., “creditor” and “debtor” are deemed “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” are deemed to be “Defendant”). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and delay damages as described in the Disposition No. 1.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion, etc.

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “The instant lawsuit was filed at the lapse of five years from September 16, 201, which was the day when the credit transaction agreement of this case expired, and the extinctive prescription for the instant claim was completed”.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the statute of limitations was suspended by auction, and the instant lawsuit was filed before five years have elapsed since the date the distribution schedule became final and conclusive, and thus the statute of limitations has not expired

In light of the above evidence, it can be seen that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of five years from the expiration date of the credit transaction agreement of this case.

However, the interruption of prescription against the principal obligor shall be effective against the surety (Article 440 of the Civil Act). If an auction procedure is in progress, the extinctive prescription shall resume from the time when the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive.

According to each of the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the seizure following the decision to commence auction on May 20, 201 on the real estate owned by C Co., Ltd., the primary debtor, was conducted on May 20, 201, and the auction was conducted on April 30, 2012, and that the distribution schedule was prepared on April 30, 201, and that the instant lawsuit was filed before five

Therefore, the defendant's above argument is without merit, and the plaintiff's above argument is with merit.

B. The Defendant did not receive damages for delay after September 28, 201 from the Plaintiff, and the dividend due to auction should be appropriated for the principal.