The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

1. The reasons for this Court concerning this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: “The Defendants” between the Defendant and the first instance court’s joint Defendant B is dismissed as “The Defendant and the first instance court’s joint Defendant B,” and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the exclusion of the part concerning the Defendant B from the third joint Defendant in the first instance court’s judgment, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the cause of claim

A. As to this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the reasons for this decision are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As to this part of the Defendant’s argument, this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the dismissal of the 7th to 4th sentence of the first instance judgment as follows. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] Since the defendant's provisional attachment order on January 20, 2009, Seoul Southern District Court 2008Ka 19468 was revoked as "application for cancellation of provisional attachment due to change of circumstances" filed by the defendant, it is argued that the interruption of prescription has no effect.

B. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Eul evidence No. 3, the above provisional attachment ruling was revoked by the above court's ruling No. 2020Ka 5005 on August 14, 2020, on the ground that "the creditor J corporation did not bring an action on the merits of the provisional attachment until three years have passed since the execution of the above provisional attachment ruling" in the case of the defendant's application for revocation of provisional attachment, and it is recognized that the above provisional attachment ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

However, Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that provisional seizure shall have no effect of interrupting prescription when it is revoked upon request of the right holder or because it is not in compliance with the provisions of law.