1. The term of the contract of guarantee between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which was concluded on April 7, 2004 between the principal debtor C, debt amount of KRW 5,00,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a joint and several surety agreement with the Defendant on the debt amounting to KRW 5,000,000 for the Defendant of the principal debtor C, May 7, 2004, and the delay damages amounting to KRW 60% per annum.

B. The Defendant did not take any measure to interrupt extinctive prescription against C, the primary debtor, as of the date of the closing of the instant argument, at least ten years from May 8, 2004, which was the day following the due date.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if the extinctive prescription of a surety obligation as to the cause of the claim was interrupted, it does not necessarily mean that the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation is interrupted. In a case where the principal obligation is extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the surety obligation is naturally extinguished depending on the nature of the principal obligation, notwithstanding the interruption of prescription of the principal obligation itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62476, May 14, 2002). Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff’s obligation against Nonparty C, which is the principal obligation, becomes extinct due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant, which

I would like to say.

3. The plaintiff's request for the conclusion is reasonable.