대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent 3 million won to the defendant on October 14, 2003 on October 21, 2003 and as joint and several surety C and D.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 3 million and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s defense credit expired by prescription.
B. As seen earlier on October 21, 2003, the time limit for payment of the foregoing loan claims is as set out in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2014, which was ten years after the said time limit for payment. Thus, the said time limit for the said loan claims expires.
Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's second defense
A. The Plaintiff’s re-claim 1) As a joint and several surety D, which is a joint and several surety, repaid the amount of KRW 350,000 on July 20, 2005, and KRW 200,000 on April 3, 2010, the extinctive prescription of the said loan claim was interrupted.
B) The Plaintiff lent money to C to C as the principal debtor or lent C as joint and several sureties, such as the above loan claim. Therefore, the repayment of interest by C is identical to the repayment of interest as the principal debtor. 2) The statute of limitations has expired even if the waiver of extinctive prescription interest was revoked.
Even if the defendant renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription on January 7, 2014.
B. Determination as to whether the extinctive prescription has been suspended or not 1) Even if D and C, a joint and several surety, partially repaid the Defendant’s above loan obligation against the Plaintiff, according to the independence of the guaranteed obligation, the cause of interruption of prescription, such as the approval of the joint and several surety’s debt, cannot be deemed to interrupt extinctive prescription against the principal obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da418, Sept. 13, 197). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s re-claim is without merit. 2) According to the overall purport of documents and arguments submitted at the trial.