2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 49,200,935 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part on “the Defendant’s argument” from the third 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance to the next 3rd of the judgment below is the same as the part on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s argument

1) The defendant asserts that the joint and several surety of this case was inevitably conducted by the plaintiff's strong attitude, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, the defendant asserts that the joint and several surety of this case was made in a state where evidence regarding the price of the goods was not presented, and thus, it is null and void. However, the joint and several surety of this case cannot be deemed null and void on the sole basis of such circumstance. Accordingly, the defendant

2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case had expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription as the price claim for goods. As seen in the foregoing 1. C., the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and the period of prescription was extended to 10 years (see Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s claim for goods payment in the barracks, the period of prescription of which has been extended. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the period of prescription for the claim under the joint and several surety of this case is ten years. Meanwhile, it is apparent that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on July 23, 2010 for which ten years have not passed since the judgment of this case became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case under the joint and several surety of this case was not complete. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) Since there was no agreement on the guarantee period at the time of the instant joint and several sureties, the Defendant asserts that the guarantee period of the instant claim against the Defendant is three years as prescribed by Article 7 of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”) and thus, the Plaintiff terminated the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant. ② The Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim was unjustifiable on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to notify the Defendant of such circumstance despite his failure to perform his/her obligation, thereby failing to perform his/her obligation to notify the obligee under Article 5 of the Surety Protection Act.

However, the Surety Protection Act was enacted by Act No. 8918 on March 21, 2008 and enforced on September 22, 2008. Article 2 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that "Articles 3 through 8 and 11 shall apply from a guarantee agreement to be entered into or renewed for the first time after the enforcement of this Act," and the joint and several guarantee of this case is governed by the Surety Protection Act, and therefore, the above argument of the defendant, which is premised on the application of the Surety Protection Act, is without merit."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted with the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)