According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 80,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination on the defense of extinctive prescription and the second defense

A. The defendant asserts that "the period of five years from August 2002, which is the due date of the loan claim of this case with commercial bond of this case, has expired even after the expiration of five years from the due date of the loan claim of this case." Accordingly, the plaintiff re-claimed to the purport that "the loan claim of this case of this case, since the payment order of this case was finalized before the expiration of the due date of the payment order and the lawsuit of this case was filed before the lapse of ten years from it, was not extinguished."

B. The facts that the maturity date of the instant loan claim was September 31, 2006 are as seen earlier (the Defendant’s assertion that the maturity date of the instant loan claim is around August 2002 is not acceptable on the grounds that there were no grounds therefor), and the facts that the instant lawsuit was filed five years (commercial bond) or ten years (private bond) after the instant lawsuit was filed is apparent in the record.

C. Meanwhile, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order (Seoul Western District Court 2007 tea9511) against the Defendant for the payment of the instant loan, and the said payment order becomes final and conclusive on August 9, 2007.

However, the period of extinctive prescription is extended to 10 years even if a claim established in a payment order constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). Accordingly, the instant loan claim constitutes a commercial claim as alleged by the Defendant.