The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. (1) The following facts do not conflict between the parties to the determination as to the cause of the claim, or may be acknowledged in Gap evidence No. 2 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

① The Plaintiff is an employee of the company run by the Plaintiff in a written application for payment order.

On September 23, 2008, the Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) set 23 billion won at 2% per month interest and lent (hereinafter “instant loan”) to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the instant company’s loan obligations.

② Thereafter, on February 1, 2010, Defendant B promised to repay KRW 2.56 billion to the Plaintiff out of the instant loans, and agreed to repay each of the KRW 1.6 billion up to February 28, 2010, KRW 300 million up to March 31, 2010, KRW 300 million up to April 30, 2010, KRW 300 million up to May 31, 2010 (hereinafter “instant promise”).

(2) According to the above findings of the determination, Defendant B, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 claimed by the Plaintiff, among the loans that the Plaintiff promised to repay as above.

B. Defendant B asserted that Defendant B’s claim based on the instant undertaking had expired due to the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription.

Since the fact that the Plaintiff is running a credit business in the name of “G” is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is a merchant, and the act of the merchant is presumed to be a commercial activity conducted for the sake of its business (Article 47 of the Commercial Act). As such, the period of extinctive prescription of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applicable to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans arising from

This is irrelevant to whether Defendant B was a merchant at the time of the instant undertaking, or whether the nature of the instant undertaking constitutes a novation.

As the plaintiff's assertion, even if the undertaking of this case is light, it is a merchant's monetary transaction.