1. The Defendant is jointly and severally and severally with the Plaintiff as to KRW 84,604,758 and KRW 25,231,949 among them, from October 31, 2016.

1. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Eul, etc. for the amount of indemnity as shown in the attached Form No. 2006da247963, Nov. 16, 2006, "the defendant, etc. shall jointly and severally pay to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund the amount of KRW 28,452,371, and 25,532,769, the amount of KRW 18% per annum from October 24, 2001 to May 31, 2005; and KRW 15% per annum from the following day to August 11, 2006; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the defendant shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff within the scope of the amount of indemnity No. 1213, Dec. 16, 2006;

2. As to this, the defendant asserted that the representative liquidator C applied for exemption from Suwon District Court 2006, 6817 and received exemption from immunity on June 5, 2007, and thus, he cannot comply with the plaintiff's request. However, the defendant's claim is without merit since C was granted exemption from immunity.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the claim for indemnity that the plaintiff acquired was extinguished by prescription.

The extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that a judgment in the Seoul Central District Court 2006Kadan247963 case became final and conclusive on December 16, 2006 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on November 15, 2016, before ten years elapse thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired was interrupted.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.