1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) adding “the result of each financial transaction information reply to the Korea Technology Finance Corporation of this court” to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and (b) as to the assertion that the Defendant added to this court, the following grounds for the judgment of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of

2. The defendant asserts that the claim for the indemnity from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund acquired by the plaintiff was completed on May 23, 2006 on May 23, 2006 after five years from the defendant's joint and several guaranty.

The claim for the indemnity of this case against the defendant of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund shall apply five years to the period of commercial prescription, but the statute of limitations shall be extended to ten years even if the claim finalized by a judgment pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act falls under the short-term extinctive prescription.

In full view of the aforementioned facts, macroscopic evidence, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund acquired the claim for indemnity by subrogation at one bank on November 27, 2003 (the period of extinctive prescription shall not run from the date of joint and several surety as alleged by the Defendant). Within five years thereafter, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit seeking payment of indemnity (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da461585) against the Defendant, etc. who is the principal obligor B and the joint and several surety (the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da461585) and received a favorable judgment on March 27, 2007. The judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 19, 207 at the time of the expiration of the period of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da233931, Sep. 21, 2017), and the extinctive prescription shall run again from that date.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense that "the extinctive prescription was completed starting from May 23, 2001" is without merit.

Furthermore, on January 16, 2017, before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.