1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s principal suit against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) C shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is the Plaintiff.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The facts of recognition reveal that the Plaintiff sold the necessary fat imported fat, destroyed fat, and damaged fat, etc. to the Defendants while running the long-term fishing business between June 1, 2005 and September 10, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendants for a payment order against the Defendants, claiming that the Defendants did not pay KRW 61,850,000 out of the purchase price. On February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff issued a payment order ordering payment of KRW 61,850,00 with 20% interest per annum from the day following the date of delivery of the original payment order to the day of complete payment (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Court Decision 2007Da35353), and on the same day, the Defendant C was served with KRW 61,850,000 from the day of delivery of the original payment order and the service date of the original payment order to the Defendant C by 200,2700% interest per annum 27.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”. The Plaintiff filed a principal suit on March 8, 2017 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the above payment claim against the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts found in Paragraph (1) of the judgment as to the cause of the principal claim against Defendant C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid purchase price of KRW 61,850,000, and delay damages therefor, barring any special circumstances, and as long as the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the finalized payment order, the interest in the lawsuit also exists.

(2) Defendant C was granted a decision on Defendant C’s defense, and the obligation for the purchase price was exempted, and Defendant C was granted exemption on August 5, 2013. At the time, Defendant C did not enter the claim based on the above payment order in the list of creditors.