대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff, on November 6, 200, extended a loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the rate of KRW 13.5% per annum, the rate of delay compensation, the rate of KRW 19% per annum, the due date for repayment, November 6, 2001, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan as of November 6, 200, and the fact that the total amount of principal and interest of the instant loan claims as of August 18, 2017 is 51,761,862.
According to the above facts, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay to the plaintiff 51,761,862 won of the principal and interest of the loan and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 12,300,000,000 of the principal.
2. Judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription of the principal obligation
A. As to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription of the principal obligation, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant extinguished the Defendant’s guaranteed obligation as well as the Defendant’s debt of this case.
The fact that the repayment period of the instant loan was November 6, 2001 is as seen earlier. It is clear that the instant application for the payment order was made on September 14, 201, which was ten years after the lapse of the ten-year period thereafter. In a case where the principal obligation became extinct due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the guaranteed obligation shall naturally be extinguished according to the nature of the principal obligation notwithstanding the interruption of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62476, May 14, 2002). Therefore, as long as the instant loan obligation against the Plaintiff by the principal obligor B was extinguished by the extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s guaranteed obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished by the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.
Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is therefore groundless.
B. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s primary obligation waives extinctive prescription interest, the Plaintiff, upon requesting the Plaintiff to verify the obligation, approved the Plaintiff’s loan obligation and the principal obligation.