1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On September 14, 2005, on September 14, 2005, the Plaintiff, via D, lent KRW 40 million to Defendant B on November 14, 2005, and Defendant C (former name: E) jointly and severally guaranteed the lending.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement”). [Based on recognition] / Each entry (including serial numbers) in Gap’s evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading [Defendant C denies the authenticity of Gap’s evidence 1-1 (Performance angle of Agreement), but it recognizes the authenticity of Gap’s evidence 2 and the whole purport of the pleading];

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 40 million and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendants asserted that the period of the five-year commercial statute of limitations expired. The Defendants asserted that the period of five-year commercial statute of limitations expired.

In light of the records in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 4 of the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 3, and 4, and the fact-finding with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor of this court, according to the whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff registered the credit business with the trade name "F" on December 1, 2015 and discontinued the above credit business on December 13, 2006, and the plaintiff lent KRW 180 million to G around November 2005, prior to the registration of the credit business, and received interest exceeding the interest rate set forth in the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, it is recognized that the plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment for the violation of the above law. In addition, considering the fact that the plaintiff and the defendants did not have any existing monetary transaction relationship or special friendship among themselves at the time of the loan agreement in this case, the plaintiff is recognized as a merchant of the credit business that had been unregistered at the time of the loan agreement in this case.

Therefore, since lending money to Defendant B is directly related to the business, loans to the Defendants can be deemed as commercial bonds.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendants is stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act.