1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On February 200, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

A. The plaintiffs are those who engage in the fiber processing business, etc. under the trade name of "D", and the defendant is those who engage in the original body processing business, etc. under the trade name of "E".

B. Since 198, the plaintiffs and the defendant have been engaged in transactions in a way that the plaintiffs received work request from the defendant, and stored the high seas, and they have been doing so to the customers designated by the defendant or the defendant.

In the process, the Plaintiffs borrowed the insufficient business funds from the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant settled the credit and debt relationship each month by deducting the interest and principal on the said borrowed funds from the service fees, such as the processing fees, etc. to be received by the Plaintiffs.

C. During the above settlement process, the Plaintiffs prepared a loan certificate stating that they received KRW 207,527,146 on July 15, 1998 from the Defendant and ordered the Defendant.

Since then, on February 29, 200, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 267,300,000 from the Defendant, hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”).

(D) On December 18, 200, the Plaintiff, as the surety, signed and sealed the loan certificate of this case, and gave the Defendant the signature and seal of the Plaintiff B. Meanwhile, on December 18, 2000, the Plaintiff set up a mortgage of KRW 500 million with respect to the land and factory located in the F, which is one of his own possession, with respect to the maximum debt amount, KRW 50 million, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff A. [based on recognition] without dispute, the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including the parcel number; hereinafter the same

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' arguments and

3. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

o Decision 11 of the first instance court is "f. Determination on the plaintiffs' defense of extinctive prescription".

The plaintiffs' defense of extinctive prescription is relevant.