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 jointly and severally guaranteed the loan from the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) 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 assume the responsibility of the Defendant for the loan of this case when the contract for the sale of commercial buildings was rescinded by agreement, the Defendant extended the maturity of the loan of this case and paid the interest on the loan of this case by March 30, 2010, and ④ After that the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt, the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

Based on the aforementioned factual basis, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations of the instant loan was interrupted due to the foregoing debt approval, since the instant lawsuit was filed on September 1, 2005, which was the due date for the payment of the instant loan, on May 30, 2014, and five years elapsed since the due date for the payment of the instant loan, and thus, the statute of limitations expired for the instant loan against A, but the Defendant, around June 2006, agreed to accept the instant loan obligations as joint and several surety upon the rescission of the instant contract with A around June 2006, and agreed to do so further from the liability of the joint and several surety and agreed to accept the instant loan obligations, and even after June 206, it is reasonable to view that the obligor had paid the interest to the obligor and approved the instant loan obligations by paying the interest.

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

Performance acceptance.