- -

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C seeking payment of the guaranteed debt for the interruption of prescription period, and rendered a favorable judgment on November 30, 2000, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, did not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of prescription period of the claim pursuant to the above judgment.

2. The defendant's assertion was based on the above judgment that the defendant's obligation under the above judgment was jointly and severally guaranteed debt against the principal debt D. Since the main debt against the plaintiff was extinguished due to the extinction of prescription, the defendant's obligation as the guarantor was also extinguished.

The argument is asserted.

In the event that the principal debt termination due to the completion of the prescription period, the joint and several debt obligation naturally terminates according to the subsidiary nature, notwithstanding the interruption of the prescription period itself (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da78606, Jan. 12, 2012). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff agreed to return the joint and several debt obligation of the Plaintiff by the end of January 16, 1998. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, Jun. 12, 1997, the Plaintiff was sold to D and G association apartment H, which is the contractor of the E reconstruction Association, and was paid to D on July 1, 1997, but did not receive the said apartment, and the said apartment was not sold, and the Plaintiff agreed to return the obligation of the Plaintiff to D by the end of February 16, 1998. The fact that the Defendant received the above joint and several debt obligation of the Plaintiff as the joint and several surety.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's debt is the joint and several debt obligation for the principal debtor D.

It is clear that the statute of limitations has expired after the lapse of 10 years from the end of February 1998 agreed to the due date, unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, as long as the debt against the plaintiff of the main debt D is extinguished due to the completion of the prescription, the joint guarantor is in accordance with the principle of non-existence.