1. Defendant B and C jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 328,155,383 and KRW 61,660,243 among them.

1. Determination as to Defendant B and C

(a)as set out in the application form for change in the cause of the claim;

(b) Judgment on deemed confessions based on recognition (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to Defendant A

A. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 9, it is recognized that the Central Mutual Savings and Finance Company established a loan of KRW 90 million on May 24, 1989 with the new term metal Co., Ltd. as of May 24, 199, Defendant A guarantees the above loan jointly and severally with the remaining Defendants, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against Defendant A prior to the transfer of the credit, and each of the assignment of credit was served on the above Defendant.

B. As to the judgment on Defendant A’s defense, it is proved that Defendant A’s debt expired by the statute of limitations. As such, the fact that Defendant A’s debt repayment period on May 24, 1991 is the same as seen earlier. As such, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on May 29, 2014, which was five years after the lapse of the statute of limitations for commercial claims, the Plaintiff’s claim against the said Defendant had already expired by the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the above defense is justified.

(A) The evidence Nos. 6 and 7 had been submitted as to the claim for a separate loan and that the obligee took the steps of interrupting prescription within five years from the above due date). 3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant A is dismissed as it is without merit, and the claim against the Defendant B and C is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.