1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with C to the day of full payment of KRW 112,901,094 and KRW 95,946,901 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 13, 2008, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant, C, etc. for the claim for the amount of reimbursement with the Changwon District Court Decision 2007Da49758, and rendered a favorable judgment against the above court on August 13, 2008 that "the defendant shall pay the amount of 112,901,094 won jointly and severally with C, and the amount of 95,946,901 won, calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from July 25, 1997 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On October 31, 2017, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the instant claim for the judgment amount (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff. On behalf of the transferor, the Plaintiff sent a written notice of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, etc. by content-certified mail on December 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on August 7, 2018, when the ten-year extinctive prescription period of the instant claim was imminent, is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order, which is the extinctive prescription period of the instant claim. As such, the instant lawsuit may be recognized as a re-instigation of a suit for interruption of prescription

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). According to the foregoing facts, the Defendant is jointly and severally with C to pay the Plaintiff who acquired the instant claims at the rate of 112,901,094 won and delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from July 25, 1997 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant special representative asserts that his judgment on the defendant special representative's assertion is an independent person separate from the defendant who is a corporation, so he should be excluded from the party.

The claim of this case is obvious that it is a claim against the defendant who is a juristic person and is not a claim against the special representative. Thus, the above claim by the defendant special representative cannot be accepted in itself.

However, it is appointed as a special representative by arranging it.