1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C”, engaged in the manufacture and sales of kitchen supplies, and D engaged in the distribution business under the trade name of “E”.

B. On October 12, 2006, the Plaintiff supplied goods to D but failed to receive the price, confirmed that the balance of the transaction arising from the transactional relationship up to that time between D and the Defendant was KRW 39,398,000, and drafted a balance guarantee certificate to guarantee that the Defendant guarantees that the Defendant will make a substitute payment if D is unable to do so by October 31, 2007.

(hereinafter “this case’s letter of guarantee”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding, the defendant is obligated to pay 39,398,000 won for goods and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the debt of this case against the plaintiff was extinguished by the prescription of five years after the commercial extinctive prescription.

On October 31, 2007, the plaintiff's claim against D, a merchant, is a commercial claim, and the period of repayment is until October 31, 2007, as seen above. Since it is evident in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on July 13, 2016, five years after the extinctive prescription period of the commercial claim was expired from the above payment period, the above claim was extinguished by the extinctive prescription period. However, the defendant guaranteed the above goods payment obligation against the plaintiff, and the principal obligation extinguished by the extinctive prescription period, and thus the defendant's obligation against the plaintiff also extinguished by the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is well-grounded.

Even if the instant letter of guarantee was prepared after the transaction between the Plaintiff and D was terminated, the principal obligation guaranteed by the instant letter of guarantee was not different from that of D’s goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff. In light of the description of the text of the instant letter of guarantee and the transaction circumstances, it is a new payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.