A. On June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the above Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) on the ground that there is no dispute between the parties, and barring any special circumstance, the above Defendant is liable to pay the instant loan and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1 as to Defendant B’s defenses. Since the above Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff repaid the instant loan to the Plaintiff around July 2003, the above Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge it, the above Defendant’s defense is without merit. 2) Since the above Defendant’s defense that the statute of limitations has expired, the above Defendant’s defense has expired, the statute of limitations expired unless it was exercised for 10 years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on January 2, 2017, which was 10 years after the date of the above lending, and therefore, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on January 2, 2017, which was 10 years after the date of the above lending. Accordingly, the above Defendant’s defense pointing this out has merit.

C. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s re-appealed to the effect that the said Defendant renounced prescription benefits by repaying KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2016.

Therefore, the obligor may waive the extinctive prescription benefit after the completion of the extinctive prescription, and the obligor expresses his intention not to receive any legal benefit due to the completion of the extinctive prescription.

In addition, the determination of whether or not there exists such an expression of intent shall be based on the principles of social justice and equity by comprehensively examining the contents, motive and background of the act or declaration of intention indicated, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to achieve by the said declaration of intention, etc.