1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,411,767 as well as KRW 6,451,180 among them, from March 28, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim does not dispute the facts of the occurrence of the obligation indicated in the table below sought by the plaintiff and the amount per se. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the claim to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant’s defense is a defense that the extinctive prescription of the above claims sought by the Plaintiff has expired, and it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2014, when five years have passed from the maturity date of each of the above claims, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the records as follows: ① the maturity date of claims No. 1 on July 4, 2007; ② the maturity date of claims No. 2 on August 21, 2003; ③ the maturity date of claims No. 3 on August 6, 2002; ④ the maturity date of claims No. 3 on August 6, 2002.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

B. As to the plaintiff's re-claim 1, the plaintiff asserts that "the claim No. 1 has been repaid until July 25, 201, and the extinctive prescription has been suspended as to the claim No. 1 until July 25, 201, the expiration date of the extinctive prescription is five years again from the above date, and that "the expiration date of the extinctive prescription is 10 years again from the above final date, since the performance recommendation decision was finalized on May 18, 2004, as to the claim No. 3, and therefore, the expiration date of the extinctive prescription is 10 years again from the above final date." Therefore, according to the statement No. 16, it is recognized that part of the performance of the claim No. 1 was made, but it is judged that part of the performance of the claim No. 1 was performed by the defendant who is the principal debtor, but the non-party who is a joint guarantor, as part of the repayment plan approved in his individual rehabilitation procedure, the grounds for interruption of prescription by the joint guarantor is the principal debtor.