1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On April 18, 2003, the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) was leased KRW 10,000,000 from the Keo Life Insurance Co., Ltd. at the interest rate of 14.4% per annum, interest rate of arrears rate of 19% per annum, and loan period of 2 years.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant guaranteed C’s above loan debt on the same day.

On June 21, 2013, Keo Life Insurance Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims from Keo Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and completed the notification of the assignment of claims to C

The remaining principal and interest of the instant loan obligation as of August 21, 2014 are KRW 11,783,112 in total, and the remaining principal and interest are KRW 4,431,353 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 11,783,112 won and delay damages for the principal amount of 4,431,353 won, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is defense that the plaintiff's loan claims of this case were extinguished by extinctive prescription.

The loan period of the instant loan is set at two years from the date of loan. As seen earlier, the said loan period is set at April 18, 2005. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s loan amount is set at the expiration of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act as the Plaintiff’s commercial claim and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applicable. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on August 26, 2014, five years after the date on which the payment period became due. As such, the instant loan claim has already expired.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The first instance court, which concluded otherwise.