The plaintiff's primary claim that was changed in exchange in this court and the ancillary claim that was added by this court.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 198, the Plaintiff, which is the primary cause of the claim, lent approximately KRW 60 million to Defendant B, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed this amount. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the amount of KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff.

B. In fact, Defendant B, who is a preliminary claim, did not have the substance of the primary export business, and did not have the intent to distribute profits, and did not take over the company E, and received the investment money from the Plaintiff on May 15, 1998 while carrying out the secondary export business on the ground of the above corporation, and acquired it by fraud. Defendant C and D acquired the Plaintiff’s investment money in collusion with Defendant B.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 60 million won in preference to compensation for damages caused by a tort.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B 1) As to the Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant B had a monetary transaction as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if so,

Even if both a loan claim and a tort claim are extinguished, the statute of limitations has expired.

defense.

Therefore, I first examine the completion of the statute of limitations.

In this case, the plaintiff lent money to the plaintiff.

Since the facts raised on July 15, 2019, after the lapse of 10 years from May 1998, which was alleged by the Plaintiff, are apparent in the record, the Plaintiff’s loan claims against Defendant B were extinguished by the statute of limitations around May 2008.

In addition, the statute of limitations expires after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the commission of a tort. Since the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on July 15, 2019, which was ten years from May 198, 199, is apparent in the record, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant B also extinguished by the statute of limitations.

The defendant B's defense of the statute of limitations is reasonable.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff was unable to exercise its rights because Defendant B escaped to China for a long time.