1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 88,570,355 and KRW 87,407,038 from May 30, 2003 to August 30, 2003.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 28, 2007, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Korea Technology Finance Corporation) filed a lawsuit for indemnity amount under subrogation against the Defendant Company A, the principal debtor of the credit guarantee agreement, and the remaining Defendants, the joint and several sureties under the credit guarantee agreement, and was sentenced to a full favorable judgment on May 30, 2003 to the Korea Technology Finance Corporation for the amount of KRW 88,570,35, and KRW 87,407,038 as to the amount of KRW 14% per annum from May 30, 2003 to August 29, 2003, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 16% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 8, 2007.

B. On September 27, 2012, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund is the Plaintiff.

Around that time, the claims for the judgment stated in the port were transferred, and the above transfer was notified to the Defendants by certified mail of contents.

C. The plaintiff is the above A.

On July 10, 2017, the instant payment order was filed to extend the prescription period for the claim stated in the claim.

[Ground] Defendant A corporation: The remaining Defendants of confession (Article 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act): The facts shown in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim established by the final judgment of the above Jung-gu District Court case No. 2007Kadan6478, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit of this case has a benefit of lawsuit as a re-litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription. Thus, barring special circumstances, Defendant A is the primary debtor, and the remaining Defendants, as joint and several surety, are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff

B. Defendant B’s claim as to Defendant B’s assertion had already been completed by the expiration of the extinctive prescription.