1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 17,402,465 to the Plaintiff.

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

3...

No dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay general loans of KRW 15 million to Daegu Bank of the principal debtor C on September 30, 2003; Daegu Bank transferred the above obligation to the plaintiff on June 29, 2004; the plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against the defendants for the payment order for the transfer money with the Daegu District Court 2006 tea2545, and received the payment order from the above court on February 7, 2006; the payment order was finalized on May 3, 2006 for the defendant Eul; and the payment order was finalized on May 4, 2006 for the defendant Eul; the obligation to pay the fixed amount of KRW 17,420,465 as of January 31, 2017; and the above obligation to pay damages to the plaintiff can be jointly and severally confirmed.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the above amount has expired, and the Plaintiff asserted that the period of prescription has expired by the acceptance of the obligation, and accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s claim No. 2, the primary debtor C can recognize the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the above amount of KRW 158,763,150, including the payment of the above amount of the deposit, and the damages for delay therefor on February 25, 2011. Accordingly, the interruption of prescription was interrupted on February 25, 2011, and the interruption of prescription against the said primary debtor C is also effective against the Defendants, the guarantor, and the interruption of prescription against the said primary debtor C is also effective, and it is apparent that the application for the payment order of the instant case was filed before the lapse of 10 years thereafter. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the re-payment of the interruption of prescription has merit,

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.