1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the reasoning of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the purport of the oral argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 140 million to the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party C") on June 9, 2009 with the due date set on October 9, 2009 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and the defendant may recognize the fact that the non-party corporation provided joint and several guarantee (hereinafter "joint and several guarantee") for the above debt of the loan of the non-party corporation against the plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 140 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 19, 2016 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, as the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. As to the defendant's defense and judgment, the defendant asserts that the debt owed to the plaintiff by the non-party company, the principal debtor, is a commercial debt, and the five-year commercial extinctive prescription has expired, and the guaranteed debt of this case has expired due to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed debt.

In light of the above, a claim arising from an act of commercial activity for both parties as well as a claim arising from an act of commercial activity is also a commercial claim with the extinctive prescription period of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity that a merchant performs for his/her business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da23195, May 12, 2000). In addition, a company shall be deemed a merchant even if it does not engage in a commercial activity, and the act of a merchant for his/her business is presumed to be an act of the merchant, and therefore, it is presumed that the act of the merchant is performed for his/her business unless there is any counter-proof.