1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

In the first instance court, the plaintiff won the claim of this case against the defendant and C as a co-defendant, and only the defendant appealed against this, the judgment of the court of first instance as to C was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent 20 million won to C on June 16, 2009 at interest rate of 25% per annum, and on October 15, 2009, the due date for repayment was determined and lent to C on October 15, 2009, and the defendant can recognize the fact that the above borrowed money was jointly and severally guaranteed by

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from October 16, 2009 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the due date for payment, to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription regarding the defendant's defense has expired since the above loan claim against the principal debtor C has expired by prescription, and the claim against the defendant who is a joint and several surety has also extinguished by the subsidiary nature of the joint and several surety

On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that C, the principal debtor, is a merchant, and the act of the merchant is presumed to be for business purposes (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act). Thus, as long as the Plaintiff failed to prove the burden of reversal of the presumption, the Plaintiff’s lending to C ought to be considered as a commercial activity. Thus, the above lending claim constitutes a commercial claim to which the period of extinctive prescription of five years under Article

The fact that the repayment period of the above loan credit was October 15, 2009 is as seen earlier.

However, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on February 21, 2018, which was five years after the lawsuit was filed, and thus, the statute of limitations has already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.