1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 91,760,000 to Defendant B by setting the interest rate of KRW 2% per month and the repayment method of KRW 14 months. Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s above loan obligation on seven occasions, and Defendant B paid KRW 45,879,95 out of the principal amount, and did not pay KRW 45,880,005 of the remainder of the principal amount.

Even if the lender of the above monetary lending and lending is not the plaintiff but D and E, the plaintiff acquired the claim against the defendants related to the above monetary lending and lending from D and E, so the right holder of the above monetary lending and lending is the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from November 25, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Defendant C’s defense prior to the merits of this case is that the lender of the loan on December 24, 2007, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is D or E, and the Plaintiff merely asserts that the above claim was acquired by transfer for the instant lawsuit, which constitutes a litigation trust, and accordingly, Defendant C asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

However, the evidence submitted by Defendant C alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was entrusted with a lawsuit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above defense by Defendant C is without merit.

3. The extinctive prescription period of a claim arising out of a commercial activity pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, is five years, and the act of a merchant is presumed to be a commercial activity pursuant to Article 47(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act. Since there is no dispute between the parties as of December 24, 2007, which the Plaintiff asserted as the date of monetary lending that the Defendants was a merchant engaged in the clothing sales business, the monetary borrowing by Defendant B is presumed to be a commercial activity, barring special circumstances.