1. The defendant shall pay KRW 5,339,491,393 to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. The Seoul Mutual Savings Bank loaned KRW 5 billion to B Co., Ltd. on June 2, 2009, and agreed on the agreed date on December 2, 2009; the applicable interest rate was 12% per annum; and the compensation rate for delay was determined by the said Savings Bank; and the Defendant guaranteed it within the limit of KRW 6.5 billion.

The balance of the above loan on May 4, 2015 is the principal amount of KRW 2,441,092,92, and damages for delay, KRW 4,233,271,320.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hahap139 decided that the plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the sum of KRW 1,952,874,337 in the balance of the above loan and damages for delay equivalent thereto 5,339,491,393 in total.

B. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription was asserted that the period of extinctive prescription has expired since the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order from December 2, 2009 to May 7, 2015, when the five-year extinctive prescription period under the Commercial Act was expired from May 7, 2015, which was the date agreed upon for the above loan obligation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the period of extinctive prescription has not expired since the agreed date was changed to December 2, 2010 after the said loan contract.

On December 2, 2009, the agreement date for the above loan obligation is as follows. According to the evidence No. 10, the plaintiff applied for a payment order to the defendant as Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Hu10877 on May 7, 2015, but the fact that the defendant applied for a payment order to the defendant as Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Hu108077 on December 7, 2015 is recognized.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 9, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to change the agreed date of the above loan obligation on December 2, 2009 to June 2, 2010, and they again agreed on June 2, 2010.