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

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1 and No. 1, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant on December 1996 and received a certificate of loan from the defendant on April 14, 1998 after the plaintiff lent KRW 190 million to the defendant on or around April 14, 1998. It can be recognized that the plaintiff notified the defendant to pay the above loan KRW 100 million by August 31, 2007. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

Since the defendant's defense that the above loan claim has expired by prescription, the above loan claim is deemed to have expired by prescription as mentioned above, and the loan claim without the time limit for payment shall commence after the lapse of a reasonable period from the time when the creditor can make a peremptory notice of payment. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is apparent in the record that the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was filed on August 5, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from the time when the plaintiff can make a peremptory notice of the return against the defendant. Thus, the above loan claim in this case had already expired by prescription before the lawsuit in this case is filed. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.

In regard to this, the plaintiff re-claimed that the defendant renounced the prescription benefit by discharging part of the debt after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's re-claim is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.