1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from September 18, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2006, Defendant C Co., Ltd. borrowed KRW 3,000,000,000 from Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change: F Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Nonindicted E”) on February 28, 2007 (the repayment date was postponed on February 28, 2007) on the date of repayment (the repayment date was postponed on July 28, 2007). Defendant D set the guarantee limit of KRW 3,90,000,000 on the above loan obligation as 24% per annum, and Defendant D set the joint and several surety on the guarantee limit of the above loan obligation as KRW 3,90,00,000.

B. Defendant C lost the benefit of time due to the delayed payment of the principal and interest of the loan. As of August 28, 2019, Defendant C Company did not repay the total of KRW 8,829,353,072 as the total of KRW 1,650,649,148 of the loan principal and interest of KRW 7,178,703,924.

C. On March 24, 2016, Nonparty E is the Plaintiff (before the mutual change on June 19, 2017: G Limited Company).

The claim was transferred and notified to the Defendants of the assignment of the claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000, which is part of the loan principal, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from September 18, 2014 to the date of full payment. Defendant D is liable to pay within the limit of KRW 3,900,000,00, as requested by the Plaintiff, in the absence of special circumstances.

B. 1) Article 168 of the Civil Act provides that “the interruption of extinctive prescription shall be interrupted by approval, etc.” under Article 168 of the Civil Act, and Article 178(1) provides that “if the prescription has been interrupted, the period of prescription that has lapsed until the interruption thereof shall not be included therein, and shall newly run from the time when the cause of interruption ceases to exist.” Article 440 of the same Act provides that “the interruption of extinctive prescription against the principal debtor shall have its effect on the principal debtor.”