1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. B B on February 9, 1996, prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion and merger, the payment period of KRW 56 million was fixed and lent to B on February 9, 1996, and the Plaintiff guaranteed the above loan obligations. The Defendant’s transfer of the loan obligations against B (the Defendant’s trade name at the time of acquisition appears to be “ELSFCB,” and the Defendant appears to have been “ELSF,” but the transferee did not confirm the accurate date of acquisition but appears to have been prior to March 30, 201) does not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's claim for the transfer money against the Eul was a credit of the payment bank by Cho Jong-Hy Bank, which is a merchant, and the period of extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is five years, and the above credit expired on February 9, 2007 after five years from February 9, 1997, which was due date. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's joint and several surety obligation was extinguished according to the subsidiary nature of the

Furthermore, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4-1 of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to perform the guaranteed obligation and exercised the obligation even after the expiration of the above extinctive prescription. Thus, the Plaintiff has the benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.