1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including additional numbers), as to the cause of the claim, ① A corporation B (hereinafter "B") obtained a credit card from the plaintiff on or around December 24, 2008, and the defendant jointly guaranteed the credit card payment amount of KRW 36,00,000 with respect to B's credit card payment obligation on or around April 21, 2009. The defendant was liable to pay the amount stated in the claim to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, since Eul delayed payment of credit card payment from February 25, 201, ② the credit card payment was 47,723,353 won, and the sum of the present unpaid credit card payment was the principal (=15,298,062 won with interest and incidental debt amount of KRW 32,425,291).

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the extinctive prescription has been completed with respect to the instant claim,” and the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the extinctive prescription was interrupted as the Defendant partly repaid his/her obligation on October 14, 2015.”

In light of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case against B was filed on February 25, 201, which was the date of delinquency due to the Plaintiff’s commercial activity, or on September 30, 201, the date of redemption of special bonds, after five years from September 30, 201.

Even if the extinctive prescription for a joint and several surety obligation is interrupted, it does not necessarily mean that the extinctive prescription for the principal obligation is interrupted, and if the principal obligation is extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the joint and several surety obligation shall naturally be extinguished according to the subsidiary nature, notwithstanding the interruption of prescription for the principal obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62476, May 14, 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’

Therefore, the defendant's above argument is with merit, and the plaintiff's above argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.