1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

The plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned lent KRW 14,850,00 to C around 198, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations against C.

Therefore, as a joint and several surety, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan 14,850,000 won and damages for delay.

The above loan claims of the defendant against the defendant's assertion C were extinguished by the ten-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the defendant's joint and several liability obligations were also extinguished by the statute of limitations.

Judgment

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Eul evidence 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and C on August 20, 2009, and the court of first instance proceeded with the above case by service by public notice, and on February 5, 2010, "the defendant and C shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 14,850,000 won and interest rate of 20% per annum from February 5, 2010 to the day of full payment." Meanwhile, it is recognized that the defendant paid 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff on March 18, 1998 as repayment of the above loan obligation.

However, even if the above loan claim against C is recognized as the plaintiff's assertion, there is no dispute between the parties about the fact that the above loan claim occurred in around 1998, and the 10-year statute of limitations under Article 162 (1) of the Civil Act applies to the above loan claim. The lawsuit in this case is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on August 20, 2009 after the lapse of 10 years from the 1998 to the 10-year statute of limitations, which is the starting point of the statute of limitations of the above loan claim. Thus, the above loan claim

Therefore, as long as the above loan claim, which is the principal debt, has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the defendant's joint and several debt has expired as a matter of course according to the nature of the guaranteed obligation.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit.