1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 172,00,000 and 25% per annum from December 27, 2005 to the date of full payment.

1. Nonparty F was not paid KRW 99,00,000, out of the cost of installation work at the construction site of G G reconstruction apartment construction in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, for the determination of the cause of the claim.

F was not paid KRW 65,00,000, out of the price for the installation of H-type machinery in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by another jun Construction Corporation.

On the other hand, F lent 8,000,000 won to jun Construction Corporation.

(b) On February 1, 2007, the Sub-Section F received a payment order of KRW 172,00,000 from the day after the delivery of the instant payment order to the creditor jointly and severally, and interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the instant payment order to the date of full payment order, which became final and conclusive on May 8, 2007.

Accomponed F 172,00,000 won among eroju Construction Co., Ltd. and the Defendants, in March 5, 2007, and on June 22, 2007, in a document of performance agreement on money consumption loan contract (No. 105, 2007, No. 105, a document of performance agreement on June 22, 2007.

On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received a claim against the Defendants from F, and F sent a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendants as of January 10, 2017, and reached the Defendants around March 2017.

【Ground A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the Defendants are obligated to pay the acquisition amount to the Plaintiff, the transferee of the bonds.

2. As to Defendant C’s defense, the above Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription of the commercial claim was completed from June 30, 2007, which was the date of performance under a notarized deed.

The F’s claim for the construction price against F-N Construction Co., Ltd. is a commercial bond and the period of extinctive prescription is five years, but the period of extinctive prescription has been extended to ten years upon the determination of the above payment order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). The Plaintiff is from the date when the payment order became final and conclusive on the basis of a notarial deed prepared after