1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,725,915 and KRW 50,725,90 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 18% per annum from May 31, 2002 to May 31, 2005.

According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the additional number) and the whole pleadings, the non-party credit guarantee fund was subrogated under the defendant's joint and several guarantee by the credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit for indemnity amount of 2007da140823 with the Seoul Central District Court on July 6, 2007 against the defendant et al., and the above court on July 6, 2007 "the defendant jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for 50,725,905 won and 50,725,902 won among them, 18% per annum from May 31, 2002 to May 31, 2005; 15% per annum from the next day to May 17, 2007; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment was affirmed by the plaintiff on August 29, 2007.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who again filed a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription 50,725,915 won and 50,725,902 won among them 18% per annum from May 31, 2002 to May 31, 2005, 15% per annum from the next day to May 17, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Although the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has expired ten years after the date when the judgment in the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive, as seen earlier, the date when the judgment in the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive is August 29, 2007, and the fact that the lawsuit was filed on August 10, 2017, which was before the ten-year lapse from the lawsuit, is obvious in the record, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.