1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of Paragraph 1 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance).

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

In addition to the amendment as stated in paragraph (2), the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as those stated in paragraph (2). Therefore, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. The amended portion No. 19-20 of the 5th 19-20th 152,80,000 won was used as "a judgment on the claim for reimbursement amounting to KRW 152,80,000", and the 6th 10 to 7th 10th 7th 19 was deleted. The 7th 19th 19 " alone is the description of evidence No. 13 of Category A, 13, 18, 19, 22, and 23," respectively. The 8th 8th 13 through 10th 7th 7th . 2) judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription was made as follows. It is obvious that the plaintiff's above 152,800,000 won claim for reimbursement was extinguished by the statute of limitations from June 18, 2006.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. As to this, the plaintiff continued to pay interest on the loans to J that the plaintiff extended to the defendant for a period of six years until July 2012, and approved the plaintiff's liability for indemnity. Further, the defendant's claim for prescription constitutes an abuse of right, and therefore, the defendant's claim for prescription cannot be allowed.

The plaintiff was from J on June 5, 2006 to 280,000.