1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the electrical construction business under the trade name of D, and the E (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) is a corporation that operates the telecommunications business.

Defendant B is the representative director of the non-party company and Defendant C is the actual operator of the non-party company, and F is the financial officer of the non-party company, who is the defendant C's wife and the defendant B's wife.

B. The non-party company borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the plaintiff on March 15, 2005 as the fund was required for the construction of the G main complex building in Yangyang-si, and the payment period was set on April 14, 2005, and the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of the non-party company.

On the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the non-party company name account from the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, F's testimony of a witness at the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 and delay damages.

In this regard, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff's loan claims against the non-party company were expired by prescription, and that the defendant's claim against the non-party company, which is the guaranteed debt, was also extinguished by the non-party

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,00,000 from the Plaintiff as it is necessary to provide funds in relation to the construction of the G main complex building as a company that operates the communications construction business by the non-party company. As such, the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the non-party company are governed by the five-year commercial extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act with commercial bonds.

In addition, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on December 18, 2013, which was much more than five years from April 14, 2005, the due date stipulated in the above loan agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiff's loan claim against the non-party company expired by prescription, and in accordance with the principle of non-performance of guaranteed obligation.