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

A. Fact 1) On December 20, 2005, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to the Defendant on March 5, 2006. (2) On March 5, 2006, the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant on March 5, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] The fact that the person is, and the fact that there is no dispute

B. In light of the facts acknowledged above, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the borrowed amount of KRW 40 million and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant is a commercial claim, and the instant lawsuit was filed more than five years after the statute of limitations expires, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim was already extinguished before the instant lawsuit was filed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant loan claim is a civil claim and the statute of limitations period is ten years.

B. The facts acknowledged. 1) At the time the Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was a liquor distributor, and the Defendant was a beverage dealer. 2) The Plaintiff leased the instant loan to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was insufficient operating funds of the beverage agency.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

C. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view the instant loan claim as a commercial claim since it is a loan loan to the Defendant who is a merchant. 2) The fact that the period for payment of the instant loan was March 5, 2006 is the same as seen earlier. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is apparent in the record that the facts raised on August 24, 2017, the period for extinctive prescription of commercial claim, was five years after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, and thus, the instant loan claim was already extinguished by extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

3 The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is recognized.

3. As to the plaintiff's other allegations, the plaintiff is at the end of 2008.