1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the plaintiff's new additional arguments to this court as stated in the following 2.1. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations was interrupted until December 30, 2013 when the rehabilitation procedure had been completed in the same manner as the principal debt, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for interruption of prescription is an obligation with delay damages as the principal debt.

On the other hand, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the claim for delay is dependent on the principal claim, and the damages for delay is continuously generated after the lapse of the due date for delay, and the damages for delay incurred due to the maturity of the principal claim can be separately claimed regardless of the principal claim. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription is run independently, regardless of the principal claim.

Ultimately, damages for delay incurred until the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan becomes final and conclusive shall proceed again with the guarantor from the date on which the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan becomes final and conclusive, and damages for delay incurred thereafter shall also be deemed to have continuously run along with the lapse of the period from the date on which the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

3. As such, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.