1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 17, 2001, Nonparty C loaned KRW 17,000,000 from D Co., Ltd. to due date on August 15, 2002 and at 12.8% per annum, and thereafter, extended the due date for the above loan to August 15, 2005.

On the other hand, at the time of extension of the repayment period of the above loan, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C's loan obligations.

B. D Co., Ltd. was merged with E Co., Ltd., and E Co., Ltd. transferred the above loan claims to F Co., Ltd. on November 11, 201, and F Co., Ltd. transferred the above loan claims to G Co., Ltd. on December 30, 201, and G Co., Ltd transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff on May 29, 2013.

On June 5, 2013, E Co., Ltd., F Co., Ltd. and G Co., Ltd. notified the transfer of each of the above assignment to C, etc.

C. The remaining principal and interest of the loan claim is KRW 27,94,631 as of November 9, 2017, including principal KRW 6,579,369, overdue interest, etc. 21,415,262.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 27,94,631 won and 15% per annum under the Civil Act from January 5, 2018, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the plaintiff, who is the final transferee of the above loan claim, and the principal of 6,579,369 won, as requested by the plaintiff, until December 12, 2018, which is appropriate to dispute over the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation, from January 5, 2018 to December 12, 2018, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant's obligation of deposit against the above loan obligation has expired by prescription.

The facts as seen earlier are as follows. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on August 15, 2005, where five years have passed since the commercial extinctive prescription period from the lawsuit of this case.