1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.

Defendant A Co., Ltd. claimed by the Plaintiff on January 16, 1985 borrowed KRW 110,000,000 from Korea Light Bank Co., Ltd., and Defendant B and the first instance trial co-defendant C set the guarantee limit of KRW 110,00,000 and jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations.

As of February 15, 2016, the above loan amounted to KRW 145,478,589 (= Principal KRW 16,457,060) (i.e., KRW 129,021,529). As such, the Defendants are obliged to pay the same money as the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff who acquired the above loan claim.

The Supreme Court Decision (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2001Da160818) was confirmed on December 7, 2001, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of 10 years from that date. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loans against the Defendants was expired.

Judgment

According to the overall purport of Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, and Eul 1, the following facts may be acknowledged:

Korea Light Bank Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Defendants as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2001Da160818, which sought the payment of the loans of this case, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2001.

Since then, the above loan claims were transferred to the Plaintiff via a limited company specializing in Korean financial system and the promotion mutual savings bank.

On September 7, 2006, Co-Defendant C of the first instance court repaid KRW 3,577,740 out of the above loans.

According to the above facts, it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 10 years from December 7, 2001, which was the date on which the previous judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the statute of limitations expired for the claims against the defendants.

(C) Since the interruption of extinctive prescription against the surety does not extend to the principal obligor even if part of the obligation was performed by C, as long as the principal obligation is extinguished by extinctive prescription, the guaranteed obligation also ceases to exist in accordance with the nature of the principal obligation. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription