1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, who worked at Defendant F, a real estate agent, and the real estate agent office of Defendant F, instructed the Plaintiff to make an investment in G by explaining to the Plaintiff that “A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) is a company engaged in the business of collecting money from the Russak lake, taking money from the Russak lake,” with the right to make an investment. On January 28, 2005, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 150 million to G at the maturity of May 31, 2005 and interest rate of KRW 24% per annum. Defendant D, a real executive officer of G, and Defendant E, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to borrow money from G (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

B. On January 31, 2005, Defendant C was responsible for the repayment of the obligation of G, and jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan, and Defendant C prepared a monetary loan certificate stating “the loan of this case borrowed from the Plaintiff by Defendant C” and delivered it to the Plaintiff. Defendant F stated that Defendant C’s debt is jointly and severally guaranteed under the said monetary loan certificate.

C. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to perform the joint and several liability to the plaintiff as they jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of G in this case.

2. Determination

(a) Where the principal obligation is extinguished due to the completion of extinctive prescription, joint and several liability obligations shall also be extinguished naturally in accordance with the nature of the principal obligation, notwithstanding the interruption of prescription

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da78606, Jan. 12, 2012). Meanwhile, a claim on how the extinctive prescription period of a certain right becomes effective is merely a mere legal assertion, and thus, can be determined ex officio by the court, not by the principle of pleading.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da68217 Decided February 15, 2013). B.

Plaintiff

Pursuant to the argument, the case was examined, and G, a merchant, borrowed money from the plaintiff for business purposes. As such, G’s act of borrowing money constitutes an auxiliary commercial activity conducted by the merchant for business purposes.

(Article 5(2) and 47 of the Commercial Act). On the other hand, commercial activities are considered as commercial activities.