1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance and alteration of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding a judgment on a new argument in the plaintiff's trial at the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall apply pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, inasmuch as the secured debt of the instant mortgage-backed claim falls under a claim arising from a commercial activity that D borrowed from the Defendant in order to raise funds necessary for the relevant business, with the trade name of U.S. Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff asserts that the five-year extinctive prescription shall apply to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the merchant is engaged in commercial activity as the subject of the rights and obligations arising from the commercial activity, and the act of operating the business is premised upon the premise that the person who performs the act in order to be governed by the Commercial Act is qualified as the merchant himself. Even if the company is deemed a merchant under the Commercial Act, the representative director of the company, who is the institution of the company, is not the merchant, and even if the representative director borrows the company’s funds for the use of the company’s funds, the loans cannot be deemed as commercial liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da70184, Mar. 26, 2015).

2. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case must be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.