1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The payment order stated in the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiffs is based on the claims that the defendant acquired from the Korea Federation on April 18, 2014.

However, since the claim of D against the plaintiffs at the time of the above transfer becomes extinct due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, compulsory execution based on the payment order after the extinction of the claim should not be allowed.

2. The facts of recognition (1) on August 30, 1997 determined and lent 10 million won to F on August 30, 1997 to F on August 30, 1999, and the Plaintiffs at the time jointly and severally guaranteed F’s obligations to E safe.

② Since F did not pay interest only until December 31, 2002 and did not pay the following obligations, E safe applied for a payment order against F and the Plaintiffs in the Gwangju District Court’s YT branch (PY2008Guj2688). The payment order was served on F and Plaintiff B on July 25, 2008.

③ With respect to Plaintiff A, payment order was not served, and upon Defendant’s filing of a suit, the case was implemented as Gwangju District Court’s 2008 Ghana 26115.

On April 24, 2009, the above court sentenced A to the defendant 12,857,548 won and to pay interest or delay damages from December 31, 2002. The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

④ On March 2017, the Defendant acquired the claim against F of the E Depository and the Plaintiffs from the Korea Federation, and applied for a payment order stated in the purport of the claim, and the said payment order became final and conclusive as it is.

⑤ Plaintiff A filed a subsequent appeal against the judgment set forth in the above paragraph (3), but was dismissed on August 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, facts with merit in the court, purport of whole pleadings

3. The plaintiff, ex officio, filed the lawsuit of this case on the premise that the order for payment stated in the purport of the claim against the plaintiff A is valid, but the plaintiff A brought the lawsuit of this case at the Gwangju District Court.