2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 29, 1996, the Plaintiff appears to have claimed that the Defendant lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant with a maturity of KRW 1997 (the record of the first instance trial was discarded after the lapse of the preservation period before the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the trial, and the Plaintiff did not clearly state the grounds for the claim in accordance with the Trial of Small Claims Act, and at the trial court, the Plaintiff did not clearly state the grounds for the claim. This is difficult to accurately understand the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the Defendant’s argument that the loan claim seeking payment in this case was the above claim, as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the Plaintiff’s argument that the loan claim seeking payment in this case was the above claim). The Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the above lending solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

B. Even if it is assumed that the loan claim asserted by the Plaintiff exists, the Defendant asserts that the above loan claim had expired by prescription before the instant lawsuit was filed.

In full view of the description of No. 6 and the purport of the entire argument of No. 6, the plaintiff can recognize that the plaintiff had been a merchant engaged in textile business at the time of lending the above money to the defendant. Thus, the above lending and borrowing by the original defendant is presumed to have been conducted for the business.

Therefore, the above loan claims are subject to five years of extinctive prescription for commercial claims under Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on November 23, 2005, which was five years after the date on which the said lawsuit was due, the above loan claims had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion.