1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional number) of the judgment as to the cause of the claim (the defendant alleged that Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 3-3 (Application No. 1-1) was forged, but the defendants are the persons who issued a seal impression and a certificate of seal impression, and considering these facts together with the purport of the whole pleadings, the entire document authenticity is presumed to have been established since the seal affixed to each of the above documents is recognized to be by the seal of the defendants, and considering the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff lent 25 million won to the defendant B on Nov. 5, 2002 on Nov. 5, 2004 and May of the due date (the above interest rate) and the fact that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan of this case on the same day, barring any special circumstances, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion on the expiration of extinctive prescription

A. The Plaintiff, who runs the credit business claiming by the Defendants, loaned money to Defendant B for the purpose of raising funds for its business to the restaurant, and the instant loan claim was filed after the lapse of five years from November 5, 2004, which was a commercial claim, and the statute of limitations expired.

B. In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s act, a merchant, constitutes a basic commercial activity (Article 46 subparag. 8 of the Commercial Act) through receipt, credit exchange, and other financial transactions (Article 46 subparag. 8 of the Commercial Act), in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3-1 through No. 3, the Plaintiff’s act as a merchant, barring special circumstances, for the sake of its business.