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

From July 5, 2007 to March 24, 2008, the extinctive prescription was interrupted as Defendant B repaid part of the interest to the Plaintiff through Defendant C. As of March 24, 2008, cumulative principal and interest amount reached KRW 101,102,168 (principal principal) as of March 24, 2008.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff was deemed to have remitted money several times from March 2, 2001 to August 20, 2002, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant B on July 3, 201 after the lapse of 14 years from the date of the final remittance, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan against the Defendant B had expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

I would like to say.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription has been suspended. Thus, according to the evidence No. 6, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant Eul approved the plaintiff's obligation at around that time, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, even though it is recognized that the defendant Eul deposited a total of KRW 8,600,000 in the agricultural bank account under the name of the plaintiff C from July 5, 2007 to March 24, 2008.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

C. Furthermore, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was fully integrated, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation to borrow loans, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant C’s assertion against the Defendant C cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal.