1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

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

3...

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 41,620,000 to co-defendant B of the first instance trial on September 25, 2005, with the due date set on January 5, 2006, and the defendant can recognize the fact that he jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation to the plaintiff of co-defendant B of the first instance trial on the same day.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 41,620,000 and damages for delay.

The summary of the defendant's defense of the statute of limitations defense is not a loan, but a price for discounting bills, and thus, the statute of limitations has expired on January 5, 2009, when three years have passed since the due date for payment.

Even if it is not so, since both the plaintiff and the principal debtor B lend money necessary for business as a merchant under the discount of bills, the extinctive prescription was completed on January 5, 2010 after five years from the due date as commercial bonds.

A Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial, around August 20, 2003, borrowed money in the name of the discount of the bill by delivering to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the face value of KRW 19.62 million issued by Nonparty C Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial on the grounds of the defense of extinctive prescription under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was refused to pay for the reason that it was a forged bill although the Plaintiff presented for payment of the said promissory note, and thereafter, B prepared and issued a loan certificate equivalent to the face value of the said promissory note on February 6, 2004 to the Plaintiff on September 25, 2005, and again prepared a loan certificate of KRW 4,1620,000 in total with the Defendant’s joint and several surety, or there is no dispute between the parties, or it can be recognized by each entry with the evidence No. 1 to No. 4

However, the plaintiff's defense that the statute of limitations under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes should apply is not the holder of the above Promissory Notes.