1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants are jointly and severally with C to the Plaintiff 12,293.

1. The following facts may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 5, and 1, together with the purport of the whole pleadings.

On May 27, 1995, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10,000,00 to C (hereinafter “instant loan”) and the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations.

B. On November 21, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and the Defendants with Busan District Court No. 2003Gada151568, and was sentenced to the above court’s judgment that “C and the Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 6,220,163 won and interest rate of 25% per annum from November 10, 1998 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 2004.

C. Since March 24, 2009, the primary debtor C repaid KRW 5,722,363 of the remaining principal out of the loan debt of this case.

The overdue interest among the loan obligations of this case, which has not been repaid, is a total of 12,293,503 won.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are joint and several surety for the instant loan obligation, and they are jointly and severally liable with the principal obligor C to pay KRW 12,293,503 to the Plaintiff.

3. Defendant B’s defense is a defense that the Defendant’s joint and several debt obligation expired by prescription. Thus, it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on January 13, 2014 after the lapse of 10 years from January 1, 2004, which was the date when the said judgment became final and conclusive. However, the interruption of prescription against the primary debtor is also effective against the guarantor (Article 40 of the Civil Act). On the other hand, partial repayment of debt prior to the expiration of prescription is effective as the approval of debt unless there is any dispute over the amount thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39854, Jan. 23, 1996). Accordingly, the interruption of prescription becomes effective as part of the instant debt repayment on March 24, 2009 where ten years have not passed since the said judgment became final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39854, Jan. 23, 209)