1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 2007, the non-party Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") and the plaintiff, a joint surety, filed a lawsuit for the claim of indemnity amount under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da30848 (hereinafter referred to as the "prior lawsuit of this case"), and on February 2, 2007, the above court rendered a favorable judgment that "the defendant jointly and severally held to the plaintiff 41,100,944 won and 41,058,308 won as to the plaintiff, 18% per annum from December 12, 2001 to May 31, 2005, 15% per annum from the next day to December 13, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). B.

On November 29, 2013, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the claim for reimbursement under paragraph (1) to the non-party company pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and around December 20, 2013, notified the non-party company of the transfer of the claim by content-certified mail.

C. On January 1, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the non-party company and the Plaintiff for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of claims based on the instant preceding judgment. On January 10, 2017, the said court issued a payment order with the same content as the order of the instant preceding judgment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order became final and conclusive on April 18, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, 2-2, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s claim for indemnity is a commercial bond and the extinctive prescription is five years, and even if the extinctive prescription period against the principal obligor is extended to 10 years by a final judgment, the guaranteed obligation shall not be extended as a matter of course.