1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 12, 1998, April 30, 1999, and May 31, 1999, the Defendant and B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) concluded a credit guarantee agreement on money loaned by the Nonindicted Co., Ltd. from the Korean National Bank under each Plaintiff’s joint and several guarantee.

B. The non-party company secured each of the above credit guarantee certificates issued by the defendant and lost the profits of each time due to the loan of the above bank in total of KRW 85 million on April 30, 1999, KRW 20 million on April 31, 199, and KRW 5.4 million on May 31, 199, and the principal and interest of the above credit guarantee certificates were not redeemed at once.

C. On March 19, 2001, the Defendant subrogated payment of the total amount of KRW 90,231,760 to the above bank in accordance with each credit guarantee agreement.

On May 29, 2003, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on the claim for reimbursement amounting to 2003da22793, the Seoul District Court rendered a judgment ordering the payment of KRW 90,172,509 on September 26, 2003, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 7, 2003.

E. On June 19, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the foregoing final judgment against the Seoul Central District Court 2013da5081722, and was sentenced to a judgment ordering the payment of KRW 90,762,121 and its delay damages on October 22, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 9, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s liability for indemnity under the above credit guarantee agreement was incurred on March 19, 2001, and the final outcome and the judgment of each of the above claims for indemnity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s liability for indemnity against the Defendant was extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

(Interruption of Prescription) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim to confirm the existence of the obligation of this case is groundless, and thus, it is dismissed.