2. Each claim for the amount of money Nos. 1, 6, and 8 in the table among the repayment of loans.

2. In full view of each statement in the evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 8-2 of evidence Nos. 1-2 and 6-2 of evidence Nos. 1-2 and 8-2 of evidence Nos. 1-2, the court can find that there was a final judgment or payment order as to each of the above claims, and it is difficult to deem that there is a benefit of lawsuit due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription period as long as there is no other reason to view that there is a benefit of lawsuit due to the excessive expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the claim part of each of the above money is dismissed as it is unlawful

2. The portion demanding the amount of money in the sequence 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 among the debt incurred from a loan;

A. In full view of the respective descriptions in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 7, 9, and 11 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the facts constituting the same cause of the claim is recognized as identical to the separate sheet (the "creditor" is deemed to be the "Plaintiff" and the "debtor" shall be deemed to be the "Defendant"). Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the unpaid principal and interest and damages for delay to the plaintiff as described in

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that “the extinctive prescription for each of the above claims has expired”

First, the reasons for the claim

2. As to the claim portion of the money Nos. 2 and 7 among the debt-generating, while five years have elapsed since the date of each subscription, the period of extinctive prescription, is insufficient to prove the date of occurrence of claims or the date of the interruption of extinctive prescription (it is difficult to recognize the date of the first delay or the date of the expiration of extinctive prescription solely with the statement of the evidence No. 2). This part of

Next, the reasons for the claim

2. In light of the claim portion of the amount of money Nos. 3, 4 and 5 from among the debt-generatings, it can be known that the lawsuit of this case was filed before five years have elapsed from the maturity date of each claim. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is partially accepted.