The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2010, C lent KRW 50 million to D as of September 8, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed D’s above loan obligation, and on the same day, the registration of creation of mortgage was completed with respect to the property owned by E, the spouse, the spouse, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 65 million.

B. C on June 26, 2015, transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for KRW 30 million and interest thereon, among the instant loans, and notified the transfer of claims on April 18, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, a joint guarantor of D, sought payment of the acquisition amount of KRW 30 million and delay damages therefor against the defendant, who is the joint guarantor of D, and the defendant asserts that the loan claim of this case in this case had expired five-year prescription with commercial claim.

B. Determination 1) In order to reverse such presumption, a merchant’s act is presumed to have been conducted for business pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act as well as for a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity for which the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to not only a party, but also a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any subparagraph of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity that a merchant under Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act conducts for business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da6760, 677, Sept. 24, 2002; 2002Da6777, Apr. 15, 2016; 2015Da2059605, Apr. 15, 2016).