1. The Plaintiff, Defendant A, and Defendant A, as to KRW 26,042,37 and KRW 24,832,617, respectively, shall be the scope inherited from Defendant B.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the Seoul Central District Court (2006Da335327) filed a lawsuit for indemnity against the defendants, etc. on December 27, 2006 with the Seoul Central District Court (26,042,377 won, respectively, and 24,832,617 won, respectively, from October 21, 2005 to December 6, 2006, "the defendant shall pay 15% interest per annum from the next day to December 6, 2006, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." This judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2007; the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund shall transfer the claims for indemnity to the plaintiff on September 25, 2014; and the Seoul Family Court (2010Da3715, Oct. 16, 2014) notified the plaintiff of its acceptance of the claims.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay the money to the plaintiff as stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

2. As to this, Defendant B asserts that the claim for reimbursement that the Plaintiff acquired was extinguished by prescription.

On the other hand, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). The fact that the Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the amount of indemnity and received a judgment of citing the same, which became final and conclusive on January 23, 2007, is as seen earlier. The fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on November 22, 2016, which was ten years after the lapse of the aforesaid ten-year period is apparent in the record, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity was interrupted.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.