2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 30, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 2 million to the Defendant at the maturity of January 30, 2009 and at the rate of 44% per annum to the Defendant on January 30, 2009. The Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties or can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loans and the damages for delay.

B. On the other hand, the defendant's defense that the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's above loan claim has expired. It constitutes a commercial claim to which the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to not only a party's commercial activity, but also a claim arising from an act constituting a commercial activity. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any subparagraph of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also the ancillary commercial activity for a merchant's business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6760, 6777, Sept. 24, 2002). Thus, the plaintiff's above loan claim is five years in accordance with Article 64 of the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, the period of the extinctive prescription period of the plaintiff's loan claim is set at January 30, 2009, and it is obvious that the above loan claim of this case expired on March 17, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is reasonable, and the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.