1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8, the defendant entered into a loan agreement with D Co., Ltd. on July 22, 2002 to the effect that 20,000 won should be applied annually, 15.5% at maturity and 15.5% at maturity and July 15, 2003; the Selection Co., Ltd guaranteed the defendant's above loan obligations; the maturity of the above loan agreement extended on July 15, 2006; on the other hand, E Co., Ltd merged D Co. on February 1, 2004; on the other hand, E Co., Ltd.'s credit claims against the defendant and Selection Co., Ltd against the defendant Co., Ltd; on November 11, 2010, G Co., Ltd. on July 30, 2011; on the other hand, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the above loan claim No. 136, 14.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant and Selection C are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of the principal and interest of loans (=15,50,443 won) and delay damages for the principal amounting to KRW 15,550,443 won.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is defense that the above claim has expired by the lapse of five years after the maturity of the loan contract.

The facts that the maturity of the above loan contract was July 15, 2006 are as seen earlier, and the facts that the Plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on November 30, 2017, which was five years after the lapse of the five years from the Plaintiff, are apparent in the record. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 7 and 8, E company applied for each payment order against Defendant and the appointed party C for the payment of claims under the above loan contract and the fact that each payment order became final and conclusive on July 31, 2010 (Uwon District Court Branch Branch 2010 tea3250, 2010 tea3252). Accordingly, the above extinctive prescription was interrupted.

Ultimately, the defendant's extinctive prescription.