1. The defendant shall jointly and severally with B for the plaintiff KRW 91,545,936 and for KRW 89,465,916 among them, from September 29 to December 29, 2009.

1. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Eul and the defendant for indemnity amount claim No. 2009da125079, Jun. 22, 2010. The above court rendered a judgment that "B and the defendant jointly and severally filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for indemnity amounting to 89,687,326 won and 89,465,916 won among them, 14% per annum from September 29 to December 28, 2009, 16% per annum from the next day to May 12, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and that "the plaintiff shall pay 10% interest per annum of 200% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment is recognized as the fact that the defendant's additional guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 108, and the defendant's additional guarantee fee.

According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in Paragraph (1) of the disposition that the plaintiff seeks to bring a lawsuit again for the extension of prescription.

2. As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the above judgment has expired by prescription.

However, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that the judgment of the Busan District Court 2009Kadan125079 was finalized on July 15, 2010 is as seen earlier. The fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on June 9, 2020, which was 10 years after the lapse of 10 years thereafter, is apparent in the record, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the said claim was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.