1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 99,00,000 and Defendant C from July 9, 1999 to February 10, 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the claim for loans with the Changwon District Court Decision 2006Kadan18863, and on November 8, 2006, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment that “the Defendants jointly and severally, from July 9, 1999, Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 99,000,000 to February 10, 2006; Defendant B shall pay 5% per annum from June 5, 2006 to June 5, 2006; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as "previous Judgment"). (b)

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to extend the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the previous judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 99,000,000 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 9, 1999 to February 10, 2006 to the defendant C, the defendant B shall pay to the plaintiff 5% per annum from June 5, 2006 to the day of complete payment, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The lawsuit of this case filed for the purpose of the extension of prescription due to the excessive completion of the extinctive prescription after the previous judgment became final and conclusive,

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B’s decision was finalized on April 19, 2010 upon the decision to grant immunity by the Changwon District Court Decision 2008Da3855 on May 4, 2010, and the decision became final and conclusive on May 4, 2010. At the same time, Defendant B’s claim that the claim based on the previous decision should also be exempted on the ground that it did not enter the claim based on the previous decision in the creditor list

B. (1) Determination 1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”)

Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the same Article provides that the obligor shall not be exempt from the liability of the obligor for discharge with respect to “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith.”

Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.