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

A. The plaintiff alleged that he lent KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant, but the defendant paid only KRW 10,000,000 among them.

On August 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in fraud. On August 30, 2004, the plaintiff was not subject to disposition of non-prosecution (Evidence of Evidence) on August 30, 2004, but the defendant also recognized the loan of the above money in the course of investigation into the above case

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant received KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff and returned some of them. However, the Defendant was donated not by borrowing KRW 50,000 from the Plaintiff but by borrowing KRW 50,000. 2) Even if the loan was given, the extinctive prescription of the above claim has already expired.

2. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on August 8, 2004 by fraud, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even though KRW 50,00,000,00 that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as claimed by the Plaintiff, the period for repayment of the above loan claims claimed by the Plaintiff appears to have been prior to August 8, 2004. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on August 8, 2014, which was ten years after the said period for payment was ten years, and thus, it is apparent that the above loan claims had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

On August 8, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant for fraud regarding the above loan claims, and received a disposition of non-prosecution on August 30, 2004 regarding the above loan claims (defluence of evidence). Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claims will run from August 30, 2004, which is the date of the disposition of non-prosecution disposition. However, the Plaintiff was unable to exercise its legal right before the determination of whether to institute a prosecution following the above criminal complaint.

Inasmuch as a criminal complaint cannot be deemed to constitute a judicial claim, seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition and approval, which are grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription as prescribed by Article 168 of the Civil Act, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is added to the remainder.