A. On December 10, 2002, the Defendant prepared a letter of loan stating that the Plaintiff would borrow KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff and pay it during December 2002 (No. 5 and the above letter of loan changed “2002” to “209,” but there is no correction or signature as to the corrected portion, and thus the correction has no validity).

B. The Plaintiff, as follows, remitted the sum of KRW 24.8 million to the Defendant’s account and lent it, and received a total of KRW 20.5 million from the Defendant.

Plaintiff

Details of remittance remittance from the defendant on July 4, 2006. 201. 80 Eul on April 17, 2007. 30 Eul 1-1, 200 on Nov. 28, 2007. 1-1, 207. 7. 27. 1, 200 Eul 1-2, 250 on May 4, 2009. 250 Eul 1-3, 200 on April 8, 2008. 8, 2008. 1-3, 20 Eul 1-4, 204 on July 21, 2008. 30 on Aug. 21, 2010. 2, 201- 1-4, 2,480 aggregate 2,050 (unit : grounds for recognition) / [No dispute over the evidence under subparagraphs 1 through 5, 17-1-2, and 1-4 evidence No.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff leased KRW 29,80,000 to the Defendant at an interest rate of 18%, and did not have received reimbursement from the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s loan receipt No. 5 was corrected by agreement with the Defendant as “2009” in 2009. As such, the Defendant borrowed KRW 29,80,000 from the Plaintiff, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5,000 from the Plaintiff. However, although the Defendant borrowed KRW 29,80,00 from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s loan claim of KRW 5,00,000 based on the loan receipt No. 5 (the Plaintiff changed “200 to “209”) was extinguished by prescription, and the remainder was fully repaid.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 29.8 million to the Defendant is as seen earlier, but among them, the claim of KRW 5,00,000 according to the loan withdrawal letter No. 5 was “in December 2002” and thus, the final due date for payment was set on December 31, 2002, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 24, 2016, which was ten years after the lapse of the said period.