1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the plaintiff's new argument in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (2. judgment on the claim against the defendant D) in addition to adding the following determination as to the plaintiff's new argument under Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance (3.13.). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. In addition to the additional determination, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant and C jointly operated the “E” business, the interruption of the extinctive prescription due to the recognition of debt granted by C shall be limited to the Defendant. ② Even if not, the Defendant is liable to repay C’s goods payment obligation to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender of C, and the Defendant asserts that C’s obligation should comply with the Plaintiff’s claim insofar as the extinctive prescription period has not expired due to the recognition of debt payment.

First, I examine the argument.

If the Defendant and C jointly assumed the obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff for the business of making up the goods, the obligation to pay the goods constitutes a joint and several obligation under Article 413 of the Civil Act, “If several debtors are liable to perform the entire obligation and the other debtors are exempted from the obligation due to the performance by one debtor.”

However, in the case of joint and several liability, the ground for interrupting the extinctive prescription, such as approving the obligation of one person jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 423 of the Civil Act does not have the effect on the other jointly and severally liable, and even if one of the joint and severally liable C approved the obligation of the plaintiff, the interruption of the extinctive prescription does not extend

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

Even if the obligation of the Defendant and C is indivisible, as in the case of joint and several liability, the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the approval of an indivisible obligation by one of the obligors does not extend to the other obligors. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion (1).