1. The plaintiff B's appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows: (a) with respect to the Plaintiff B’s claim for the completion of extinctive prescription in this court; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding any further determination under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing

(It is reasonable to find facts and make decisions in the first instance even considering the materials added by the court).

A. (1) On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff B asserted that, since the debt owed to Defendant D, which is the principal debt, was extinguished by the completion of the prescription on March 2, 2016, the debt of the instant repayment agreement, which is the guaranteed debt, was extinguished in accordance with the subsidiary nature. Therefore, on July 26, 2017, after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s 1,895,000 won, which was distributed to Plaintiff B in the compulsory execution of corporeal movables based on the instant payment order, did not have legal grounds, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff B the said KRW 1,895

(2) As to this, the Defendant separately agreed on the Plaintiff B’s obligation under the instant repayment agreement, and even if it is a guaranteed obligation, the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the Plaintiff’s approval of the principal obligor D’s obligation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription of the principal obligation

B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff B’s obligation under the instant repayment agreement is the guaranteed obligation for the D’s obligation, and examine the purport of the entire argument on the evidence adopted earlier, the instant repayment agreement is based on the D’s obligation, but it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff B paid the amount directly agreed to the Defendant by the specific due date according to a separate agreement. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant repayment agreement is merely a D’s guaranteed obligation.

Therefore, Plaintiff B’s assertion, which assumes that the instant repayment agreement is a guarantee obligation for D’s obligation, is without merit, and becomes final and conclusive differently.