1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 182,883,963 as well as KRW 52,018,83 as well as the total amount of KRW 52,018,83 as from October 1, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who acquired the indemnity amount the amount of the indemnity amount at the rate of 12% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment, the agreed interest rate of KRW 182,883,963 as well as the principal of the subrogated payment of KRW 52,018,83 as to the amount of the subrogated payment.

2. The defendant's assertion that the period of extinctive prescription has expired. However, the Credit Guarantee Fund, the transferor of the claim for reimbursement of this case, filed a lawsuit against the defendant who is the principal debtor B and the joint guarantor, and the judgment in favor of the court was finalized on April 7, 2005. On June 19, 1999, the provisional attachment decision was entered on the same day after receiving a decision of provisional attachment of real estate (the above court 9Kadan818), and the registration of provisional attachment was cancelled on August 4, 2015 due to the sale by voluntary auction on August 4, 2015. Since the interruption of prescription as to the principal debtor under Article 440 of the Civil Act extends to the joint guarantor and the defendant who is the joint guarantor, and the interruption of prescription as to the provisional attachment continues to continue to have the effect of preserving the execution of the provisional attachment, it is obvious that the above lawsuit of this case has not been effective before the expiration of the prescription period.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.