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

A. The Defendant, who operated the manufacturing industry, has purchased raw materials from the Plaintiff since 2008.

B. While the Defendant delayed the payment of goods to the Plaintiff, on May 10, 2009, issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 63,58,214” (hereinafter “the instant monetary loan agreement”) and issued a promissory note with face value of KRW 63,58,214 on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 63,58,214 and delay damages pursuant to the monetary loan agreement of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. 1) The defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription is as to the claim based on the plaintiff's monetary loan contract of this case is related to the price of goods and the prescription of a short-term of three years has expired. 2) The judgment of light or quasi-loan for consumption is identical to the contract that extinguishs the existing debt and establishes the new debt, but it is not identical to the existing debt in light of light, while in principle, it is recognized as a quasi-loan for consumption. Thus, if the parties to the existing claim agree to regard the object as the object of a loan for consumption, it is first determined by the parties' intention, and if the parties' intent is not clear, it cannot be viewed as a quasi-loan for consumption, as the creditor loses the security and the debtor loses the right to defense, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a quasi-loan for consumption.