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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Plaintiff’s assertion - C was admitted to D around October 2009 and retired on May 10, 2010, and the Defendant was a fidelity guarantor who entered into a contract for the guarantee of fidelity with the Plaintiff on May 1, 2010. - C was cut off the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 70 million during the period of his/her service in D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff retired from C on May 10, 2010 and filed a criminal complaint for larceny. C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on December 15, 2010 at Suwon District Court. - Defendant is liable to pay damages equivalent to KRW 50 million incurred to the Plaintiff due to theft under the said guarantee contract. 2) Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was aware of the theft contract with the Defendant, but did not conclude the said contract with the Defendant without notifying the Defendant thereof.

This is against the principle of good faith and also against the Fidelity Guarantee Act, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff's damage claim against C has expired three years after the lapse of three years, and the defendant's guarantee obligation also expired due to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.

B. Even if the Defendant’s debt guarantee liability is recognized, if the Plaintiff’s claim for damages of this case against C expired by prescription, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted, and thereafter, the lower court should first determine whether the Plaintiff’s claim for damages has expired by prescription.

Even based on the plaintiff's assertion, it is around 2010 that the plaintiff knew of the theft of C, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription period of three years thereafter has elapsed.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s damage claim against C has expired by prescription, the Defendant’s guarantee liability also expired.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.