1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. As to this part of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance, this court’s reasoning is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning “the claim for the completion of extinctive prescription” is partially modified as follows, and thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The modified part;

B. Inasmuch as the instant claim was determined by the instant judgment, the extinctive prescription of ten years ought to run from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance, the instant claim becomes final and conclusive on March 7, 2009. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim expires on March 7, 2019 after the lapse of ten years from the date when the judgment became final and conclusive.

However, as the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was interrupted, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted a total of seven million won to the Defendant until November 4, 2011, and that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim against the Plaintiff A was interrupted on November 4, 2011. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim against the Plaintiff was interrupted on November 4, 201.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 174 of the Civil Act, if a judicial claim is made within six months after the peremptory notice for performance of obligation, the interruption of prescription is effective. A judicial claim as to the cause of interruption of prescription under Articles 168 subparag. 1 and 170(1) of the Civil Act includes not only cases where a right holder claims a right by lawsuit against a person who claims prescription, but also cases where a person who claims prescription has filed a lawsuit as the plaintiff and has actively asserted the right in the lawsuit and has accepted it. However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the items of evidence No. 10-1, 2, E No. 11, 12-1, 2, and 15-1, E No. 12-1, 12-2, and 15, the Defendant’s agent delegated by Da, the transferor of prescription.