1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, given that the reasons for this case are identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the portion added as set forth in the following paragraph 2. Thus, they are cited in accordance

2. The addition;

A. From September 26, 2008, the Defendant’s claim for indemnity against the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant’s principal safety resistance expired on September 26, 2018 after ten years of extinctive prescription period from September 26, 2008, which became final and conclusive by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2007Da123467, and the Defendant’s joint and several surety obligation against the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., the guarantor of the Co., Ltd., Ltd

Therefore, there is no preserved claim against B, and the lawsuit of this case subrogated B is unlawful.

B. In a claim by the judgment obligee against a third party by exercising the subrogation right of the obligee, the third obligor cannot set up against the obligee any defense against the obligee, and in principle, the person entitled to invoke the statute of limitations when the statute of limitations has been completed is only the person directly receiving the benefit of prescription, and the third obligor cannot exercise the right of subrogation of the obligee.

(2) The Defendant, a third-party obligor, cannot invoke that the Plaintiff’s claim against B had expired the extinctive prescription. Thus, the aforementioned defense is without merit, without further examining it.

(A) According to the evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 6, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the Plaintiff Company C as of May 29, 2018, before the lapse of 10 years from October 3, 2008, which became final and conclusive by the judgment in favor of the Gwangju District Court 2007Da1234677, with respect to the Plaintiff Company C, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Plaintiff Company C was extinguished or that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Plaintiff was extinguished.