The judgment below

The part against the defendant (appointed party) is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The interruption of prescription shall be effective only between the parties and their successors (Article 169 of the Civil Act), and even if the extinctive prescription for a surety obligation is interrupted, it shall not be interrupted as to the principal obligation;

(2) In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed as follows: (a) even if the extinctive prescription of a guaranteed obligation has not been completed due to the interruption, etc. of the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation, if the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation is completed as a matter of course; (b) the principal obligation is extinguished as a matter of course due to the completion of the extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da2157, Feb. 13, 1979; 2010Da51192, Jul. 12, 2012).

On October 4, 1996, the Chuncheon Central Saemaul Bank set the due date of payment of KRW 20,000,000 to the appointed parties C under the joint and several guarantee of the defendant (appointed parties, hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") and the appointed parties B, and granted a loan on October 3, 1998.

B. On September 17, 1999, the Chuncheon Central Saemaul Bank received a provisional attachment order on the real estate owned by the Defendant by the Chuncheon District Court 99Kadan6829.

(hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) C.

On October 24, 2002, 54,425 won of the principal of the loan was repaid as the amount invested by the Selection C. D.

The Plaintiff acquired the above loans in succession through MMC Loan Co., Ltd. and AB Trade Co., Ltd. on three days, and each transfer was notified to the Defendant and the designated parties.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the Supreme Court precedents seen earlier, even if the extinctive prescription for the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligations with the instant provisional attachment is interrupted, the extinctive prescription for the Defendant’s principal obligation and the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligations, thereby, shall not be interrupted.

In addition, the extinctive prescription of the loan obligation from October 24, 2002, which is part of the repayment date of the loan, is for the loan obligation.