1. Defendant D and E shall be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff A for KRW 64,285,714, Plaintiff B and C, respectively.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

On February 15, 2012, the network H loaned the amount of KRW 150 million to Defendant D Co., Ltd. as of August 14, 2012. Defendant E and F guaranteed Defendant D’s obligation to pay for the above deceased.

B. The network H died on December 28, 2018, and the wife succeeded to Plaintiff A and his/her children, Plaintiff B and C, the wife, at the rate of 3:2:2.

2. Claim against Defendant F;

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, Defendant F is jointly and severally liable with Company D to pay, barring special circumstances, the amount of KRW 150,000,000,000, which falls under the Plaintiffs’ respective shares in inheritance (i.e., KRW 150,000 x 3/7), and the Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 42,857,142 (i.e., KRW 150,000 x 2/7) and damages for delay on each of the above amounts.

B. As to the determination of the statute of limitations defense, Defendant F raises a defense that the statute of limitations expired by the above loan claim, which is the principal obligation.

On the other hand, Defendant D, a principal debtor, is deemed to be a merchant pursuant to Article 5 of the Commercial Act, and its borrowing act is presumed to have been conducted for business purposes. Therefore, the above borrowing act by Defendant D, a principal debtor, should be deemed to be a commercial activity.

However, as seen earlier, it is clear in the record that the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on February 1, 2019, which was five years after the expiration of the commercial extinctive prescription period from the Plaintiff. As such, the foregoing loan claims had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ joint and several surety claims against Defendant F with respect to Defendant F were extinguished by the extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the defendant F's above defense is justified.

C. As to the determination on the re-appeal, such as interruption of prescription