1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim and the defendant's defense

A. On October 23, 2002, the Plaintiff lent KRW 300 million to the Defendant on December 23, 2002, by setting the due date for repayment, and the fact that the designated parties jointly and severally liable for the above loan obligation (Evidence A1-1) did not conflict between the parties, and thus, the Defendant and the designated parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan and delay damages to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to this, the defendant defenses that the plaintiff's above loan claim expired by the statute of limitations, it is clear that the plaintiff's above loan claim was due on December 23, 2002. Thus, since the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was filed on October 14, 2013 after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit in this case, it is reasonable to view that the above loan claim had already expired by the statute of limitations prior to the lawsuit in this case and the designated parties' joint and several obligations were also extinguished.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified.

(2) The court below held that the plaintiff's loan claim is a commercial bond and the defendant's loan claim is subject to the five-year statute of limitations. However, as long as there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is a merchant, the loan loan claim of the defendant cannot be viewed as commercial activity or auxiliary commercial activity. Thus, the plaintiff's loan claim cannot be viewed as commercial activity or auxiliary commercial activity. 2. The plaintiff's re-claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's loan claim can not be viewed as the plaintiff's loan claim.