1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 200, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,00 to Defendant A with interest rate of KRW 36% per annum and due date on October 1, 2003 (hereinafter “instant loan”). Defendant B guaranteed the obligation to return the instant loan on the same day.

B. On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendants for the payment of the instant loan (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan of KRW 10,000,000 and damages for delay.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations expired prior to the application for the instant payment order, the statute of limitations expired.

However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff is a merchant with the purpose of the acquisition and management of the sales bonds and the collection of the purchase price of the sales bonds and the financing business related thereto, and as part of the business act, the money of this case is leased to the defendant A, and the loans of this case are subject to the five-year commercial prescription period.

However, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order from October 1, 2003 to September 13, 2013, which was five years after the maturity date of the instant loan claim. As such, the said claim has expired after the lapse of the statute of limitations, and the Defendant B’s joint and several surety obligation has expired according to the subsidiary nature.

Therefore, the above statute of limitations defense of the defendants is justified.

B. On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff’s re-appealed to the interruption of extinctive prescription payment of KRW 400,000 to C, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, and C, who is an employee of the Plaintiff.