1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 80,511,253 and KRW 61,563,308 among them.

1. The facts stated in the separate sheet of claim for the determination of the cause of claim do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 2.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount stated in paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff.

In addition, as seen below, the instant lawsuit filed for the purpose of interrupting extinctive prescription due to the imminent completion of extinctive prescription after the previous judgment became final and conclusive, has the benefit of protecting the rights.

2. On the determination of Defendant B’s defense of extinctive prescription, Defendant B asserts that the debt of the instant loan was extinguished by the lapse of five-year commercial extinctive prescription.

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants on May 23, 2008 and received a favorable judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2007dan400365). The statute of limitations is extended to 10 years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), the extended statute of limitations is new from the time the judgment becomes final and conclusive (Article 178(2) of the Civil Act). The fact that the plaintiff filed an application for the payment order of this case on July 21, 2017, which is within the ten-year statute of limitations from the date the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the statute of limitations for the instant loan claim has not expired, and Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.