1. The plaintiff's 10,000,000 based on the joint and several guarantee contract and interest thereon and delay damages against the defendant around 2003.

1. Around 2003, the Plaintiff’s birth C borrowed KRW 10,00,00 from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff concluded a joint and several guarantee contract with the Defendant and jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation to the Defendant at the same time. Since then, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Daegu District Court Decision 2007Hadan1193, 1193, and 1193, the Plaintiff was granted a immunity decision at the above court on November 30, 2007. The Plaintiff did not conflict between the parties that did not report the Defendant’s guarantee claim against the Plaintiff at the time of filing the application for bankruptcy and exemption.

2. The period of extinctive prescription begins from the time when a right can be exercised. According to the above facts in this case, the defendant's guarantee claim against the plaintiff occurred in around 2003, and there is no evidence to deem that the period of the above claim has been specifically set. Thus, the above claim can be exercised from around 2003, when the claim occurred. There is no evidence to deem that the defendant had committed an act that constitutes a cause for interrupting extinctive prescription, such as a claim in the lawsuit, against the plaintiff within the said period.

Therefore, as long as the defendant's above claim against the plaintiff was extinguished by the completion of prescription, and the defendant is dissatisfied with it, the benefit of confirmation shall also be recognized.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.