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

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since April 2007, the defendant was in arrears with respect to the loan of this case from around April 2007, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the extinctive prescription was completed five years thereafter.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that, on May 30, 201, the extinctive prescription was suspended since the Defendant prepared the “request for debt readjustment and letter of undertaking” and approved the debt.

In light of the overall purport of each of the above evidence, each of the loan obligations of this case was established before May 1, 2007, where a loan in the Samsung Card form was made in the No. 6 Samsung Card form, and all of around that time, it can be acknowledged that the non-payment was in arrears, and the fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed on November 24, 2015, which was five years after the lapse of the above, is clearly indicated in the record.

Meanwhile, as acknowledged by the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the Bdong community service center of this court and each of the above evidence, in addition to the fact that the defendant did not sign a request for debt approval adjustment and a letter of undertaking before and after May 30, 201, or issued all documents necessary for the preparation thereof, and in fact, the defendant did not fully repay the loan of this case before and after the above point, the evidence, including the evidence No. 7, including the above, cannot be recognized as the fact-finding of the defendant

Therefore, the defendant's defense for the completion of extinctive prescription is reasonable.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.