1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned 10 million won to the plaintiff on October 16, 1999 on October 16, 200, interest rate of 12.5% per annum, interest rate of 19% per annum, and interest rate of 19% per annum (hereinafter "the loan debt of this case"). In this case, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan of this case against the plaintiff. ② The repayment period of the loan of this case was extended several times according to the agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff and changed on October 16, 204. The defendant consented to the extension of the repayment period of this case to the plaintiff on August 16, 200, ③ the principal and interest of the loan of this case as of August 7, 2009 are recognized as the principal and interest of the loan of this case as the principal and interest of this case 15,2931,379

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally obligated to pay to the plaintiff 15,921,823 won with the principal of the loan and the principal of the loan 7,792,430 won to the plaintiff from August 8, 2009 to October 23, 2009, a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant as requested by the plaintiff, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until October 23, 2009 and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense ① Since the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case was completed at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the defendant does not have any obligation

② Even if the completion of prescription is not recognized at the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the interruption of prescription by public notice against the Defendant at the first instance court is inappropriate, and thus, the interruption of prescription by public notice is not recognized. Therefore, the Defendant does not have a duty to repay the said money, as the extinctive prescription of

B. (1) First, we examine the argument.

In the instant case, spam, etc.