1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claims against the defendants are all satisfied.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002Da30585, and filed a lawsuit for the amount of reimbursement on February 6, 2003, “the Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff, and KRW 20% per annum from December 29, 198 to December 31, 1998, and KRW 18% per annum from January 1, 1999 to November 12, 2002, and KRW 25% per annum from November 13, 2002 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “previous judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 1, 2003.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants for the instant payment order on March 11, 2013 for the extension of the statute of limitations for the claim for indemnity under the previous judgment (hereinafter “instant claim for indemnity”). On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the said claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor 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 notified the Defendants of the said assignment of claim around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor 75,299,044 won and interest or delay damages thereon to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, the assignee of the claim for indemnity of this case, unless there are any special circumstances.

B. The Defendants’ defenses, etc. 1) The Defendants asserted that the above claim for reimbursement was extinguished by the statute of limitations. As such, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order in the instant lawsuit on March 11, 2013 after the lapse of ten years from March 1, 2003 when the previous judgment became final and conclusive. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the instant claim for reimbursement was extinguished by the statute of limitations. 2) As to this, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor ① repayment of the above claim for reimbursement with the Defendants’ substitute payment, and ② Defendant C’s repayment.