1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 192,118,207 and KRW 58,533,964 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2007, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Da36824), filed a lawsuit for indemnity amount under subrogation against E Co., Ltd., the principal debtor under a credit guarantee agreement, the Defendants, and F Co., Ltd., a joint guarantor, and rendered a favorable judgment on October 24, 2007, stating that “The Defendant, E Co., Ltd. and F shall jointly and severally pay to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund 91,650,045 won and 60,49,934 won per annum from August 4, 2004 to November 3, 2004; 16% per annum from the following following day until August 25, 2007; and that “the amount calculated by each ratio of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” was finalized on November 17, 2007.

B. On September 27, 2012, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund is the Plaintiff.

Around that time, the claims for the judgment stated in the claim were transferred, and the Defendants, E, and F were notified to the Defendants, E, and F, by means of content-certified mail.

C. As of September 14, 2017, the above A

The principal amount of the judgment bond stated in the subsection is KRW 58,533,964, and the total amount of overdue interest is KRW 133,584,243.

The plaintiff above A.

On October 10, 2017, the instant payment order was filed to extend the prescription period for the claim stated in the claim.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number in the case of provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the final judgment of the Daejeon District Court case No. 2007Da36824, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit of this case has the benefit of lawsuit as a re-litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, as joint and several sureties, are liable to pay the Plaintiff

B. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion