1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or written in addition] The “notarial deed” in Part 2 of the Decision of the Court of First Instance No. 10 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) shall be added next to the “notarial deed.”

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, " August 26, 2015" in Part 13 shall be applied to " August 26, 2005".

Part III of the judgment of the first instance court shall add the following details to the third one:

Plaintiff

A is in the position of the principal obligor or the joint obligor jointly responsible with the Plaintiff B with respect to the instant obligation under the notarial deed, and the Defendant was issued an attachment assignment order on March 4, 2007 regarding the claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff A, but the lessee was not a Plaintiff A but G, and thus becomes impossible to execute. As such, the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiffs’ obligation under the above notarial deed was interrupted by the above attachment assignment order.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, the 10th "Plaintiff" shall be applied to "Plaintiff B".

Part 3: The following shall be added to the third decision of the first instance:

B. In a case where the contractual content of a certain contract is written between the parties to the contract as a disposal document with respect to the allegation of interruption of extinctive prescription, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence of the expression of intent and its content should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da220955, Jan. 14, 2016). In light of the content and form of the instant No. 1 deed (Evidence 1) and the loan certificate (Evidence 1) that served as the basis for the preparation thereof, the Plaintiff A has jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligation owed by the Plaintiff B, and otherwise, the Plaintiff A is the principal obligor or its principal obligor with respect to the said obligation under the said notarial deed, barring any special circumstance.