The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the extinctive prescription of a guaranteed obligation is not completed due to reasons such as suspension of the extinctive prescription, where the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation is completed, the principal obligation is naturally extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, and thus, the guaranteed obligation also ceases to exist due

However, in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances to deny the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation, the surety cannot claim the extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation on account of the lapse of the prescription period of the principal obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da51192, Jul. 12, 2012). However, in order to deny the subsidiary nature that falls under the essential nature of the guaranteed obligation by recognizing the aforementioned special circumstances, the surety should have expressed his/her intent to perform the guaranteed obligation despite the lapse of the prescription period of the principal obligation. However, the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation cannot be denied merely by the fact that the surety provided a cause for the lapse of the prescription period

2. The lower court acknowledged the following facts in full view of the adopted evidence. A.

On March 5, 2004, the Defendant entered into the instant loan business agreement with financial institutions, including Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”), to lend part payments to buyers, to build and sell the instant commercial building, and agreed to jointly and severally guarantee the buyer’s obligations for loans to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.

B. The J received each of the instant loans from the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank on August 13, 2004 and September 1, 2004 as the buyer. A succeeded to the status of the buyer from J and became the principal debtor of each of the instant loans by taking over on June 17, 2005 each of the instant loans to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank on June 17, 2005 after succeeding to the status of the buyer.

C. The defendant is located in Seoul Mutual Savings Bank every six months from July 28, 2005 in Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.