1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The defendant is jointly and severally with the plaintiff 16,387,326 won.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B entered into a small loan guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to be borne by the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. under the instant insurance contract.

B. Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid insurance money to the financial institution upon the occurrence of the insurance accident under the instant insurance contract.

C. On October 7, 2004, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against B and the Defendant for the claim for reimbursement (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Gaso123202) and rendered a favorable judgment against B and the Defendant that “B and the Defendant jointly and severally paid the Seoul Guarantee Insurance KRW 5,832,174 and the amount calculated by the rate of 19% per annum from June 11, 2003 to September 5, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.’s claims against B and the Defendant are “the instant claim,” and the said judgment is “the instant judgment”).

The Seoul Guarantee Insurance transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the transfer to B on behalf of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

E. The instant claim amounting to KRW 5,420,110 as of July 9, 2014, and damages for delay amounting to KRW 10,967,216.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay to the plaintiff 16,387,326 won (10,110 won) and 5,420,110 won among them, 17% of the delay damages per annum as claimed by the plaintiff from July 10, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. First of all, the Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s claim for extinctive prescription is extinctive prescription prior to the closing of argument.