1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, upon receiving a loan from the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below for the payment of intermediate payment, the defendant is jointly and severally liable and the interest on the loan (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) is agreed to be borne by the defendant. ② After that, the defendant and A agreed to be responsible for the loan of this case when the contract for the sale of the commercial building was rescinded by agreement, the defendant extended the maturity of the loan of this case and paid the interest on the loan of this case by March 30, 2010 even after the cancellation of the above agreement, and ④ After that the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt, the plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.

Based on the foregoing factual basis, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations of the instant loan obligation was not expired on the grounds that, on June 2007, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the obligation of this case upon the rescission of the agreement on the instant contract with A, and that Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, a creditor, accepted it around that time, on or around June 2007, when the Defendant assumed the obligation, and subsequently, the Defendant continued to pay the interest by March 30, 201, as the Defendant is liable for the obligation, on or around June 30, 201.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the relevant legal principles, if the assumption of an obligation to exempt A under an agreement between the defendant and A is effective, the creditor must obtain the consent of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (Article 454(1) of the Civil Act). On record, the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank consents to the discharge of A, who is the principal debtor of the instant loan, from liability.