1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against B, including the Plaintiff, including the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap53578 claim amount, etc. and won a favorable judgment on September 26, 2006 (hereinafter “the preceding judgment”). The judgment was finalized on May 29, 2007 through an appellate trial.

B. The Plaintiff is a joint and several surety for the primary debtor B, and B filed an application for immunity with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 209Hadan26409, the bankruptcy court 2009, and 26409, the bankruptcy case was discontinued simultaneously with the declaration of bankruptcy on December 31, 2009, and the application for immunity was accepted on February 14, 201.

(c) The list of creditors of the debtor B’s bankruptcy and application for immunity shall also include the claims of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund;

The Defendant acquired the claim based on the judgment prior to the instant case from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, and as of 2017, the principal is KRW 145,745,97.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the claim based on the previous judgment of this case has expired ten years after the date of confirmation.

The Defendant asserts that the interruption of extinctive prescription against the principal obligor is also effective against the Plaintiff who is the surety, and that the extinctive prescription has not yet expired since December 31, 2009 when the interruption of extinctive prescription was discontinued upon the application filed by B for immunity from bankruptcy and bankruptcy of the principal obligor B, which is the principal obligor, and that the period has not elapsed since ten years thereafter.

3. Articles 171 and 170(2) of the Civil Act provide that the interruption of prescription is effective in the event an obligee participates in a bankruptcy procedure and the revocation or rejection is not made by the obligee. Article 32 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for the participation in bankruptcy proceedings as a cause interrupting prescription under subparagraph 2.

In addition, Article 440 of the Civil Code provides that the interruption of prescription against the principal obligor is effective against the surety.

As seen earlier, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund participated in the bankruptcy proceedings of the principal debtor B, and the result therefrom.