2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

A. The Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 20,778,500 from September 2007 to November 2007 with respect to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operating a trucking transport business.

B. On November 22, 2007, the Defendant, the wife of D’s representative director, prepared a written confirmation to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2008 that he would pay D’s above transport fare obligation (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed D's obligation for transport charges by preparing and granting the certificate of this case to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,778,50 and damages for delay.

B. (1) The defendant's defense that the plaintiff's transport fee claim has expired one year's extinctive prescription.

(2) Pursuant to Articles 147 and 122 of the Commercial Act, the short-term extinctive prescription of one year is applied to the transport charge claim, and the due date for repayment of D’s claim, the primary debtor, arrives at November 21, 2008, which is the due date specified in the instant confirmation, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 4, 2012, which has passed one year since the instant lawsuit was filed.

Therefore, as long as there is no specific evidence by the plaintiff as to the interruption of extinctive prescription, the plaintiff's claim for transportation fee against D has expired by prescription, and the claim against the defendant, a joint guarantor, has also been extinguished in accordance with the principle of non-performance of guaranteed obligation.

On the other hand, since the plaintiff asserted that "the defendant jointly and severally paid" in the complaint, it can be seen that the relation between D and the defendant is not a joint and several liability relationship, but a joint and several liability relationship.

However, when the extinctive prescription for one of the obligors has been completed, the part of the obligor's liability.