(2) As to the above KRW 50 million on a cash storage certificate, the Defendant received the money from the Plaintiff as an investment in the partnership business, and should be distributed in the course of liquidation following the termination of the partnership business relationship, and even if the Defendant is liable to pay the said money, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money.

Even if the extinctive prescription of a commercial or civil action is completed, it refers to defense.

Furthermore, a claim of KRW 20 million and KRW 15.4 million related to credit card payment related to a promissory note is defense that the extinctive prescription has expired.

* First, we do not accept the argument that the above KRW 50 million was paid as a business investment loan, and the statement in Eul Nos. 3 through 6 alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, we do not accept the argument that the above KRW 50 million was a business investment loan.

* Since it is determined that a loan claim as of February 10, 2002 is a health bond with no fixed time limit, the extinctive prescription is in progress from the time of its establishment. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 25, 2013 after the lapse of 10 years from the above date, the above loan claim has already expired prior to the instant lawsuit.

Around April 2012, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant renounced the statute of limitations benefits after the completion of the statute of limitations. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant expressed his/her intent not to receive legal benefits due to the completion of the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations on the above claim by the time the Plaintiff asserts (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da21556, Feb. 28, 2013). Thus, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is rejected on January 201, 201.