1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when A, who purchased the commercial building of this case from the Defendant, receives a loan from the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Mutual Savings Bank"), for the payment of intermediate payment, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan, and the interest on the loan (hereinafter referred to as the "loan of this case") shall be borne by the Defendant; ② thereafter, the Defendant agreed to be responsible for the loan of this case when the Defendant and A cancel the sales contract of this case; ③ the Defendant paid the interest on the loan of this case by March 30, 2010 when the maturity of the loan of this case is extended after the above termination of the agreement; ④ After 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 March 30, 201, on the grounds that the statute of limitations for the instant loan obligation was not expired.

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

A. Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the relevant legal principles, if the assumption of an obligation to exempt A through an agreement between the defendant and A becomes effective, the consent of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, which is the creditor, is required (Article 454(1) of the Civil Act). It cannot be seen that the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, on the record, consented to or consented to the exemption from the obligation of the principal debtor of the loan of this case, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against A on the premise that A is the principal debtor of the loan of this case. In addition, it does not appear that there is any circumstance under which the defendant, who is the joint guarantor of the loan of this case, was in the position of the defendant as the joint guarantor of the loan of this case, under the circumstances at the time of agreement between the defendant and A, had the interest of the loan of this case extended at the request of the defendant and the defendant, and the defendant was in the position of promoting the sale business of commercial buildings construction, taking into account the fact that the defendant agreed to take charge of the loan of this case at the time of cancelling the sales contract between A and the parties.

B. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription by deeming that the instant lawsuit was filed before five years elapse from the day after March 30, 2010, which was the date of the Defendant’s final interest payment, on the premise that the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the obligation of this case, on the premise that the Defendant took over the obligation of this case as a discharge of liability. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of a juristic act and the assumption of obligation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination.

Justices Park Jae-hee in charge

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jae-in