1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

From the date of recognition under paragraph (1) among the grounds for the judgment of the first instance;

C. The part of the judgment under paragraph (2) (the fifth part to third part) is identical to the grounds for this court’s explanation, and thus, the part which is determined differently from the first instance judgment is as follows. (3) Next, we examine whether the Defendant’s joint and several liability for the instant claim has expired by the statute of limitations.

A) The fact that the judgment on the claim of this case became final and conclusive on September 13, 2006, and the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the payment order against the Defendant on March 15, 2017 for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period of the claim of this case against the Defendant, which was ten (10) years after the lapse of the ten (10) years from the Plaintiff, is apparent in the record. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against the Defendant should have already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case. (B) The extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was suspended due to the Plaintiff’s participation in the bankruptcy proceeding against the Defendant, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, which is the principal obligor, in the bankruptcy proceeding against the Defendant, (the interruption of the prescription against the principal obligor under Article 40 of the Civil Act is effective as against the surety), and the prescription has again been resumed from May 18, 2007, which was the date the decision on the exemption from the above bankruptcy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case has not expired.

In other words, as grounds for interruption of prescription, the allegation that there was participation in bankruptcy proceedings under Article 32 subparagraph 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or “approval of obligations” under Article 168 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act, as grounds for interruption of prescription.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the primary debtor B of the instant claim included the instant claim by the Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2006Hadan39302, Nov. 29, 2006, and 2006Ha40820.