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

A. On June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff lent 15 billion won to Defendant B without setting the interest and the due date.

B. On December 24, 2007, Defendant B established Defendant C by physical division of the company.

Defendant C accepted the payment obligation of KRW 7 billion out of the above loan of KRW 15 billion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 4 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the claim is a stock company, and the Plaintiff’s act of lending KRW 15 billion to Defendant B is presumed to be an act performed for business purposes. The act performed by the merchant for business purposes constitutes commercial activities. As to the instant loan claims, commercial statute of limitations applies to the instant loan claims (see Articles 47 and 64 of the Commercial Act). The statute of limitations runs from June 25, 2004, when a claim for the instant loan is established when it is possible to exercise a claim without fixing the due date for repayment of the loan claims.

The extinctive prescription is run from December 24, 2007, which is the date of debt acquisition, even if the defendant C's assumption of obligation is considered as the date of discharge as the assumption of obligation.

The instant lawsuit was filed on December 29, 2017 from June 25, 2004, or from December 24, 2007, the date of debt acquisition, which was the date of lease, to December 25, 2004, to which the five-year extinctive prescription expires, and thus, the instant loan claim expired by prescription.

Since the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription that points out this issue is well-grounded, the plaintiff's claim for loans is without merit.

As to this, the Plaintiff resisted that the statute of limitations was interrupted by approving the Defendant’s debt owed to a police officer on February 2016. However, at that time, the Defendants approved the Defendant’s debt.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that there has been an expression of intent not to receive any legal benefit due to the completion of the prescription.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.