1. As to KRW 274,486,208 and KRW 43,223,79 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from July 12, 2017 to October 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 16, 2007, as Busan District Court Decision 2007Da46158, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit for indemnity claim against the Defendant, a principal debtor under the Credit Guarantee Agreement, B and the Defendant, a joint guarantor, etc., and was rendered a favorable judgment on August 16, 2007 that “the Defendant jointly and severally with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, etc., for KRW 69,313,943, and for KRW 63,690,789, the amount of KRW 17% per annum from February 18, 1994 to June 2, 2007, and for KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2007.

B. After collecting some amount from Company B, etc., the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund thereafter: (a) the Plaintiff on September 25, 2014.

Of the judgment bond stated in this subsection, the remaining principal and interest claim (the balance of principal 43,223,799) was transferred.

(c) Around October 30, 2014, the Credit Guarantee Fund notified the Defendant, etc. of the transfer by means of content-certified mail.

As of July 12, 2017, above A.

The principal balance of the judgment bond stated in the paragraph is KRW 43,223,79, and the total overdue interest is KRW 231,262,409.

E. The plaintiff is the above A.

On July 27, 2017, the instant payment order was filed to extend the prescription period for the claim stated in the claim.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number in the case of provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the final judgment of the above Busan District Court case No. 2007Da46158, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit of this case has the benefit of lawsuit as a re-instigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is a joint and several surety and is obliged

B. The defendant's assertion