1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract with a limited liability company C to carry out the construction work.

B. With respect to the above construction work, the Plaintiff received a written confirmation of payment for construction cost of KRW 110 million from the limited company C on June 5, 2008 (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant payment confirmation”) from the limited company C, and at the time the Defendant guaranteed the payment of the said construction cost.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination

A. According to the instant written confirmation of payment, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 110 million and damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant argues that the payment confirmation of this case is merely a document prepared formally to obtain a loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such defendant's assertion, and this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription - The Defendant’s defense to the effect that the payment obligation of the construction price under the instant payment confirmation has already expired and expired.

The debt of the limited company C and the Defendant under the instant payment confirmation is related to the construction contract, and the short-term extinctive prescription of the three-year period under Article 163 of the Civil Act is applied, or at least five-year commercial extinctive prescription is applicable. As seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, it is apparent that the extinctive prescription has already been completed as of the time when the instant lawsuit was filed, barring any special circumstance.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff argues to the effect that the instant letter of payment was prepared for a criminal case agreement, and thus, it cannot be asserted extinctive prescription. However, it is difficult to find out a meaningful legal assertion to prevent the Defendant from defense of extinctive prescription.

3. Conclusion against the Plaintiff