1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 1997, the Plaintiff loaned 180 million won to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and received a partial repayment, and the balance of the leased principal is KRW 120,758,624.

B. The Plaintiff issued a loan guarantee on March 1997, and the warranty bond on June 1996 to Defendant A. When the Plaintiff performed each of the above warranty obligations, the Defendant A agreed to pay the amount paid by the Plaintiff for the performance of the respective warranty obligations and damages for delay thereof. The Defendant B, the Defendant Daelim Planning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Daelim Planning”) and the Seo Seo Seo Seo Seo Total Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seo Total Construction”) jointly and severally guaranteed all the obligations owed by Defendant A to the Plaintiff according to the above loan warranty agreement, and the Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed all the obligations owed by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above warranty liability agreement.

On October 13, 1997, the Plaintiff paid KRW 359,740,90,907 to Dongnam Bank in accordance with the loan guarantee agreement, and paid KRW 3.760,000 to Geumnam-dong council of occupants' representatives on September 14, 1999, and recovered KRW 479,465.

C. The plaintiff in the judgment of the previous suit was the Seoul District Court 2002Gahap62789, which was the defendant A.

The loans set forth in subsection (b) shall be extended to the Defendants and the Combi comprehensive mining construction.

On June 27, 2003, Defendant A and Defendant B filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement and joint and several surety claims stated in the claim and received a judgment in favor of the lower court (hereinafter “the judgment in a prior suit”). Defendant A and Defendant B did not appeal against the judgment in a prior suit, and the judgment in a prior suit was finalized on July 18, 2003 with respect to the said Defendants, and Defendant Daelim Planning appealed against the judgment in a prior suit, and the judgment in the prior suit was finalized on July 15, 2004 with respect to the said Defendant.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 31, 2013, as it is necessary for the interruption of the ten-year extinctive prescription of claims based on the final judgment of the previous suit.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul 3.