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

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

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff, on November 6, 2006, agreed to pay KRW 470,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2006, taking into account the following facts; (b) the Defendants’ joint and several sureties on the same day.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the plaintiff's ground of claim and the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription against the defendants, the above 470,000,000 won and damages for delay, the defendants asserted that the defendants' joint and several liability obligations of the defendants were extinguished upon the expiration of extinctive prescription.

B. In light of the completion of the extinctive prescription, the non-party company, as the principal obligor of the above agreed amount claim, is a limited merchant under Article 4 of the Commercial Act or constructive merchant under Article 5(2) of the Commercial Act. The act of the non-party company, which is a merchant under Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act, is presumed to be for business purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da7863, May 27, 2005; 97Da9260, Aug. 25, 1997). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the above agreed amount claim to be for business purposes of the non-party company. As such, the above agreed amount claim constitutes a commercial claim subject to the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim was clearly raised before the lapse of the five-year period after the lapse of the five-year period from the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the above agreed amount claim was already filed.

In addition, in a case where the claim for the agreed amount, which is the principal obligation, is extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription, the Defendants’ joint and several liability is naturally extinguished according to the nature of the principal obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Da78606, Jan. 12, 2012; 2010Da51192, Jul. 12, 2012).