1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant carried out a project to newly build and sell the Suwon-si B and six lots above ground C commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”).

B. D on August 25, 2005, sold 321,517,827 won each of the 1st floor and 16th floor of the instant commercial building by the Defendant.

C. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) extended loans totaling KRW 269,600,000 as part payment loans to D on August 30, 2005, by setting 12 months from the date of loans and 23% per annum on overdue interest rate, to D on August 30, 2005.

【Nos. 2 through 8, 16, and Ra No. 3, each entry (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In light of the above, the loan maturity of this case as indicated in Gap evidence 1 was voluntarily recorded by Seoul Mutual Savings Bank on August 30, 2009, and there is no evidence to prove that D, a principal debtor, consented thereto).

The defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of D's above loan.

E. The principal and interest of the loan as of May 11, 2014 is KRW 264,340,498 (i.e., principal and interest of the loan amounting to KRW 186,00,000 (=78,340,498).

F. Meanwhile, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was sentenced on September 26, 2013 and was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, 16, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 264,340,498 won and the loan principal of KRW 186,00,000 from May 12, 2014 to the date of full payment, delay damages at the rate of 23% per annum under the agreed interest rate.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment are defenses that the plaintiff's above loan claims against D have expired by prescription.

According to the above facts, D's obligations of the above loans have arrived at the maturity of August 30, 2006, and the lawsuit of this case has been over five years since the lapse of the commercial statute of limitations.