1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 9, 2002, B obtained a loan of KRW 22,00,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (Merger Co., Ltd.) on the scheduled date of payment from the Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (Merger Co., Ltd.) on August 13, 2002; the date of settlement; September 21, 2002; the date of initial repayment; the period of loan; and the period of loan of KRW 12 months; the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed this. 2) On the same day, the Samsung Card Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff on May 3, 2006; and Solomon Mutual Savings Co., Ltd. transferred each of the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff on April 26, 2011; and each of the above assignment of claims was notified to B.

3) As of November 18, 2016, the instant loans are in the state of failure to repay the principal amount of KRW 20,788,924,71,858,480. [Grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, evidence A, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as a joint and several surety of B, has a duty to pay the plaintiff 92,647,404 won (=20,788,924 won + 71,858,480 won) and delay damages for 20,788,924 won among them.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. As to the defendant's defense, since the defendant's defenses that the period of extinctive prescription of the loan of this case has expired, the defendant can invoke the completion of the extinctive prescription (Article 433 (1) of the Civil Act). The loan of this case constitutes the obligation arising from the commercial activity of Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription is applied pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

Furthermore, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, since the final repayment of the obligation of this case is deemed to be August 21, 2003, the extinctive prescription of the obligation of this case shall run from August 21, 2003, even if it is assumed that B did not lose the benefit of time.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, 5 years have elapsed from August 21, 2003.