1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Case summary and cause of claim

A. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the statement of "1. Basic Facts" in the first instance court's reasoning, except that the court's explanation on this part is the same as the statement of "1. Basic Facts" in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the court's explanation on this part is the same as the period of guarantee (from May 2, 2008 to October 31, 2008).

B. According to the above facts, the subcontract construction contract of this case was lawfully terminated around August 26, 2008 due to the nonperformance of the obligation of the Dongyang-do, and as long as the subcontract construction contract of this case was lawfully terminated within the warranty period, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit under the contract performance guarantee contract of this case unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination on the statute of limitations defense, etc.

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that the obligation to pay the contract deposit of this case was extinguished due to the extinction of the prescription period of the principal obligation. 2) The contract performance guarantee contract of this case is to guarantee the liability for damages to the Plaintiff of the same Tyang to the extent of the guaranteed amount where the contract of this case was terminated due to the nonperformance of the contract of this case, and the provisions or legal principles on the guarantee under the Civil Act, including the nature of the guaranteed obligation, are applied mutatis mutandis.

In addition, the contract for the subcontract of this case is a commercial obligation and the period of extinctive prescription is five years, and the starting date thereof is around August 26, 2008, when the contract for the subcontract of this case was lawfully terminated, the contract for the subcontract of this case was terminated on or around August 26, 2013. Therefore, since the contract for the contract for the contract of this case was terminated by the nature of the guaranteed obligation as well as the obligation to pay the deposit to the plaintiff under the contract for the contract of this case, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. This regard.