2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 11, 2002, the Plaintiff lent 110,000,000 won to C (representative director D) at a monthly rate of 2% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”). At the time, the Plaintiff paid 15,000,000 won by October 18, 2002 and paid 5,00,000 won per month.

Defendant and D guaranteed C’s debt of the instant loan.

B. D repaid KRW 2,00,000 on October 30, 2002, KRW 5,000,000 on December 30, 2002, KRW 5,000,00 on May 4, 2016, and KRW 5,000 on June 7, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, the guarantor of the loan of this case, is liable for the repayment of KRW 93,00,000 which was not paid out of the loan of this case, and the defendant asserted that the loan of this case was extinguished by prescription.

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, KRW 15,00,00 among the loans in this case was repaid on October 18, 2002 and the remainder of KRW 95,00,000 shall be repaid in 19 months each, respectively. The final repayment period for the loans in this case is around May 2004. The claims arising from not only a commercial activity but also a commercial activity falling under only a commercial activity are governed by the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under each subparagraph of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also auxiliary commercial activity performed by a merchant for his/her business, and the merchant's act is presumed to be conducted for business purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1050, May 10, 2012). Thus, the merchant's act is presumed to be conducted for business purposes by a company to be conducted for business purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5057.