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

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

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant B on July 27, 2001, and the Plaintiff promised Defendant B to pay the remainder of KRW 57,000,000 on October 30, 2002 (the due date stated in the evidence A No. 2) until February 20, 203, and Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, as joint and several, jointly and severally guaranteed this obligation. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants jointly and severally demanded payment of the said obligation.

However, since the statute of limitations of a claim is ten years, the statute of limitations has expired on February 20, 2013 when ten years have passed since the above claim of the plaintiff was due.

The defendants' defenses asserted this are with merit.

(A) The claim against Defendant C is not sufficient to prove that Defendant C guaranteed Defendant C’s debt, but because the latter is based on which the right to defense of extinctive prescription has been accepted, it is not determined separately in detail regarding the relationship between the occurrence of the guaranteed claim). The Plaintiff, who promised to repay the debt from time to time to time to time on February 20, 2019, and approved the debt with the Plaintiff at the time of telephone conversations with the Plaintiff on February 20, 2019, the extinctive prescription was interrupted, and the ten-year extinctive prescription has not yet been expired from that time.

Plaintiff

There is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B approved the obligation by promising the repayment in any of the events before February 20, 2013, when the extinctive prescription has expired from the time when the claim is claimed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was completed on February 20, 2013, once the statute of limitations expires.

After the lapse of the statute of limitations, there is no interruption of the statute of limitations, but there is a case where the debtor cannot set up a defense for the completion of the statute of limitations because the debtor's acceptance of debt constitutes waiver of the benefit of the statute of limitations.

The debtor who is the party to whom the statute of limitations has been interrupted.