1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation as to this case are as follows. The remaining evidence, other than the evidence presented in the “additional Part” of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, is added to insufficient evidence. As such, the court of first instance cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part】 The Defendants asserted to the effect that the statute of limitations has expired on November 26, 2012, since the statute of limitations has been extended by the judgment of the first instance of this case, and the nature of the preserved claim was changed from the joint and several debt to the judgment debt, Article 440 of the Civil Act does not apply. On August 22, 2005, the first seizure and collection order of this case did not go beyond the collection act, and thus, it cannot be said that the statute of limitations has been interrupted by the second seizure and collection order of this case. Thus, the secured claim of this case has expired on November 26, 2012.

The circumstance alone asserted by the Defendants is that the first seizure order of this case does not have the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription.

In order to interrupt the extinctive prescription of the preserved claim of this case, notification under Article 176 of the Civil Act is difficult to be deemed necessary. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is rejected on a different premise.

2. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed.