The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the management institution of the Korea Agricultural and Fishery Guarantee Fund established under the Credit Guarantee for Farmers and Fishermen Act.

B. At the time that the Defendant received a loan from C Cooperatives, the Plaintiff guaranteed the Defendant’s repayment of the loan to C Cooperatives pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff, as the Defendant was unable to repay the debt owed to C Association, subrogated to C Association for the Defendant’s debt.

Based on the claim for indemnity, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for a payment order with the 2009Hu187, Mapo-Gun District Court 2009Da187, and the payment order was issued on April 7, 2009 to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 279,473,665 won and 228,979,507 won with 15% interest per annum from February 26, 2009 to the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.

Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Gwangju District Court 2009Hadan3454, including the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement, and was declared bankrupt on January 29, 2010.

The defendant filed an application for immunity with the same court No. 2009Gu3452, but on September 15, 2010, the decision was confirmed as it became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal and interest of the indemnity of this case and damages for delay on the principal, unless there are any particular circumstances. However, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the indemnity claim of this case has already been completed prior to the filing of

As to this, the Plaintiff’s petition for bankruptcy and exemption was made on the premise that the Plaintiff explicitly approves the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff, so the extinctive prescription of the claim for reimbursement of this case was interrupted due to the Defendant’s bankruptcy petition, and thus, from September 15, 2010, the exemption was denied.