beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed, respectively.
2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 3 million to C around April 7, 1994, and KRW 3.7 million around November 3, 1994, without fixing the due date for repayment (hereinafter "the above loan claim against the plaintiff Eul"), and the defendant may recognize the fact that the above loan claim against the plaintiff is guaranteed by Eul. Thus, the defendant, the guarantor, is liable to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 6.7 million and delay damages therefor, barring any special circumstance.
(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed, but it is not sufficient to recognize the extinctive prescription claim and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the statute of limitations claim on February 2, 201
A. The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has expired.
In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 5-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, which can be known by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, the extinctive prescription of each of the above loan claims is expired from the lending date, namely, the loan claims of this case, the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired on April 7, 2004 and November 3, 2004, respectively, and the plaintiff did not appear to have taken any specific measures against Eul or the defendant with respect to the loan claims of this case prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, the above defendant's defense is justified.
B. On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription of the guaranteed claim against the Defendant was interrupted, since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C, the principal debtor, and obtained a final and conclusive judgment.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff’s judgment against C on April 15, 2009 as Seoul Southern District Court 2009 Ghana888.