1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the following provisions are added between the fourth, fifth and sixth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the fourth, fourth and sixth, “2. argument and decision” of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the fact that “3. argument and decision on the merits” are different from the statement of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, they

2. Determination on the portion added "2. Judgment on the defense before the merits"

A. The lawsuit of this case filed by Defendant A, B, and C against the said Defendants (third obligor) on behalf of the Plaintiff (the reimbursement obligee) on behalf of the said Defendants (the third obligor) was extinguished by the statute of limitations defense by the said Defendants.

Therefore, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because there is no preserved claim against the creditor in the creditor subrogation lawsuit.

B. Even if the extinctive prescription of a surety obligation is suspended, it does not necessarily mean that the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation is interrupted, and in a case where the principal obligation is extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the surety obligation is naturally extinguished according to the nature of the principal obligation regardless of the interruption of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62476, May 14, 2002). However, in a case where a creditor claims against a third party by exercising the obligee’s subrogation right, the third obligor cannot oppose the obligee’s defense against the obligee. In principle, the third obligor cannot oppose the obligor’s defense against the obligee. In a case where the extinctive prescription of the claim is completed, the person who can invoke

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da31472 delivered on December 8, 1998). Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against D (creditor) has expired even if the said claim was concluded.

The third debtor is also a debtor.