1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 194,589,954.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 1995, the Seocheon Mutual Savings and Finance Company Co., Ltd.: (a) lent KRW 130 million to Defendant A at an interest rate of KRW 16.5%, maturity on September 7, 1996, at an interest rate of KRW 20% per annum; and (b) Defendant B and C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant A’s obligations to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 27, 1999, the Seocheon Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. filed an application for provisional attachment with the Daejeon District Court red support 99Kadan3631 on the share of 1/2 of the 3184m2 of the 3184m2 of the 3184m2 of the 3184m2 of the 2313m2 of the 2313m2 of the forest land owned by the Defendant Bocheon-si, Bocheon-si, Si

C. Seocheon Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. changed its trade name to light mutual savings banks ( March 5, 2002), Incheon Mutual Savings Bank ( May 9, 2002), and the Plaintiff ( August 29, 2007).

On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 147,401,378 from the auction of real estate (this court F) commenced on each real estate stated in Paragraph (b) of this Article. The Plaintiff appropriated the dividend to the principal of the loan, interest, and partial damages for delay, and as a result, Defendant A’s obligation to the Plaintiff to compensate for delay remains in KRW 194,589,954.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts based on the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant A is the principal debtor, and Defendant B and C are jointly and severally joint and severally liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff KRW 194,589,954.

B. Defendant B and C’s defense that the Plaintiff’s above claim of KRW 194,589,954 was extinguished by the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription against the interest claim.

However, the plaintiff's claim claim of this case is a commercial damages claim of which the period of extinctive prescription is not three years but five years, and as seen in the basic facts, the plaintiff made a provisional attachment order on August 27, 199 with regard to the real estate owned by the defendant A, with the loan claim of the defendant A as the claim claim.