Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

However, the defendant defense that the plaintiff's claim for interest in this case constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription of 3 years, and the extinctive prescription of 10 years has expired, while the above bank loaned this case to the non-party 1 on May 30, 1964 without a guarantee period agreement, and the above status as a joint and several surety of 10 years have elapsed since the above status as a joint and several surety of 19 years have expired. Thus, this case's claim for interest in arrears against the defendant who is the non-party 1's joint and several surety is unreasonable. Thus, since it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for interest in arrears was based on the above loan's claim for interest in arrears after May 30, 1965, the period of extinctive prescription of 10 years has expired, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim for interest in arrears has not been appropriated for the remainder of the above loan's claim for interest in arrears from the expiration date of 20 years to the expiration date of 16 years prior to the above loan's expiration date.

Then, on October 1, 1967, when the above bank transferred the principal and interest of the loan to Nonparty 1 to the Plaintiff, the above bank notified Nonparty 1, the debtor, or it did not consent to the transfer of the principal and interest of the loan to Nonparty 1. Thus, the above transfer of the claim to Nonparty 1 is null and void. Thus, the transfer of the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff by the above bank transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff by the above bank under Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for overdue Loans of Financial Institutions. This is not in accordance with the above Act, but is not based on a claim transfer contract under the Civil Act, because the above bank, the creditor, did not notify the debtor of the transfer of the claim, or the debtor did not consent to the transfer, and thus, the assignment of claim to Nonparty 1, the debtor

Finally, even if the plaintiff's claim for this case was reasonable, the defendant lent the above bank to the non-party 1, and around May 30, 1964, the (name omitted) industrial financing company operated by the non-party 1, which became the joint guarantor, caused the above company's management crisis. Thus, the above bank should inform the defendant who is a joint guarantor of the above reason and call attention to the defendant, and there is no contact or notification among them. The above claim for this case was filed in the past about 13 years since there was considerable negligence, which is the creditor as well as the plaintiff as a joint guarantor. However, in relation to the monetary loan of this case, since the plaintiff did not contact or notify the defendant about the property status of the non-party 1, which is the joint guarantor, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to exercise any duty of care, the defendant's defense based on the premise that there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is legitimate, and the original judgment with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Jeon Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)