2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 10 million on August 10, 1991, ② KRW 2 million on October 10, 1991, ③ KRW 10 million on October 25, 1991.

B. On November 4, 1998, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for a loan claim, and on February 4, 1999, "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% per annum from September 6, 1992 to November 24, 1998, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (Seoul District Court Decision 98DaDa867311, hereinafter "the first judgment"). The first judgment became final and conclusive on February 27, 199. The plaintiff received the first judgment against the defendant for the purpose of suspending the extinctive prescription on February 2, 2009, before the lapse of 10 years from the first judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on March 13, 2009 (Seoul District Court Decision 209Da32949, March 29, 209).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the first judgment to the plaintiff. On March 21, 2019, before ten years have passed since the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive, the plaintiff sought payment again against the defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the lawsuit of this case, which was instituted against the defendant, also has the benefit of protecting rights.

B. The defendant asserts that ① the above KRW 10 million is not a loan but a loan, and the defendant arranged the conclusion of the automobile insurance contract to the plaintiff and received the payment for the contract, and thus there is no obligation to pay to the defendant. ② Even if there is a obligation to pay, the extinctive prescription as to such obligation has expired, the plaintiff's claim is unreasonable

However, the above argument constitutes a ground that occurred before the closing of argument in the first judgment, and the purport of the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription is not clear, but it is not clear.